When people can tell their children that there is more to life than hate and always being right, there just might be a chance for these two sides to get their acts together.
The 'both-sides-are-awful' dismissal of Gaza ignores the key role of the US government
The temptation to wash one's hands of the whole conflict is understandable, but US support of Israel is a central force driving it all
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 November 2012
'...For years now, US financial, military and diplomatic support of Israel has been the central enabling force driving this endless conflict. The bombs Israel drops on Gazans, and the planes they use to drop them, and the weapons they use to occupy the West Bank and protect settlements are paid for, in substantial part, by the US taxpayer, and those actions are shielded from recrimination by the UN veto power aggressively wielded in Israel's favor by the US government.
...Just consider the actions of the US over the last week as violence in Gaza escalated. On Tuesday, the US vetoed a UN Security Council cease-fire resolution on the ground, in essence, that it was too balanced. The US State Department publicly attacked its Nato ally, Turkey, for condemning Israeli aggression. As always, the US Congress and the US Executive Branch are virtually unanimous in their full-throated, completely one-sided support for Israeli actions.
...If one wants to try to wash one's hands of this entire matter by declaring both sides equally culpable, that's fine. But doing so requires an acknowledgment that the US government is doing nothing of the sort. It is fueling, funding and feeding the Israeli war machine, and, with its own militaristic conduct, is legitimizing the premises of Israeli aggression.
This is exactly what I was referencing when I wrote on Saturday that one must stop pretending that the US is some sort of helpless, uninvolved party in this war between two distant, foreign entities. That is complete fiction. If an American citizen really wants to advocate for neutrality on the ground that both sides are equally horrible and they're sick of the whole conflict and wish it would all just go away, then the place to begin with that advocacy is US government policy which, as unpleasant as it might be to face, has long been, and remains more than ever, a key force that drives the bloodshed.'
the part I bolded in red.......is this believable? that Canada is interested in what's good for both sides? Baird said Canada was voting against the initiative because "we are firmly convinced (it) will undermine the objective of reaching a comprehensive, lasting and just settlement for both sides.
Canada's (the Harper) government is interested in what's best for Israel: A staunch ally of Israel, he blocked the planned recommendations on Mideast peace talks even though the terms are a key part of U.S. President Barack Obama's campaign to revive negotiations as pro-democracy movements sprout in the Arab world.
But Mr. Harper said those terms were only part of the position Mr. Obama laid out in a May 19 speech. The Prime Minister said he couldn't accept mention of Israel's 1967 borders unless the G8 also referred to Mr. Obama's calls for Palestinian concessions.
"You can't cherry pick elements of that speech," Mr. Harper told reporters at the close of the summit.
"I think if you're going to get into other elements, obviously I would like to see reference to elements that were also in President Obama's speech. Such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be demilitarized." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... state.html
In counter to the Israeli talking point echoed by the US and amplified by our government: that any lasting peace agreement must be negotiated bilaterally, and the UN statehood bid (in '11) and the bid for observer state status (granted the other day) were unilateral moves by the Palestinians, Dr Norman Finkelstein has argued that the Palestinians want to use as their baseline for peace negotiations and a two-state solution - international law and opinion...ie: the pre-1967 borders. The Israeli's baseline for peace negotiations is arbitrary - they want to begin negotiations with a starting point based on their own terms and borders.
Harper blocked any mention of the 67 borders in the final communique from the G8 summit in France last year. This week our foreign minister went to the UN specifically to threaten Palestine. Our government's stance is widely considered more in line with Israel than even the US, traditionally Israel's staunchest supporter. As an aside, since I'm mentioning both Finkelstein and our goverment - the Harper Cons, thru immigration minister Jason Kenney, tried to ban Finkelstein from speaking in our country in 2010. And I can see why. The Finkelstein talk I attended at the UofA was a turning point for me on this topic. The fact that our government doesn't want our students hearing the other side shows their (lack of) objectivity.
Honestly, Hugh....does it sound at all believable to you that our government has the best interests of BOTH sides at heart? I'm happy to see you taking an interest in this topic...I also think it's good that you're being cautious in choosing a side and not easily falling to bias on one side or the other. But you have to ask yourself: with the behaviour of our current government in regards to support for the US, support for the military industrial complex, support for big oil and other groups who benefit from western colonialism - essentially all of the symptoms of neo-con sickness.....do you think you can trust our government to align itself with the moral majority and be an honest broker for peace?..... or to act in the best interests of the people who sign their cheques? You might want to factor the answer to that question into your evolving opinion on the occupation
Our government has once again placed our nation on the wrong side of history.
Told ya! Britain, and no doubt the U.S, will now try and lessen the damage caused in the wake of the landslide vote at the U.N General Assembly in favour of Palestinian statehood, which left them isolated on the World stage.
UK may recall Israel ambassador over settlement plan
Foreign Office considers withdrawing diplomats after Israel authorised 3,000 new homes in the wake of UN vote on Palestine
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk
Monday 3 December 2012
Britain is considering tough diplomatic measures, including the possible recall of its ambassador to Tel Aviv, in response to Israel's announcement of settlement expansion. Its move followed the vote by the United Nations general assembly to recognise the Palestinian state.
The recall of the British ambassador would be a dramatic and unprecedented rebuke to the Israeli government, whose isolation was sharply illustrated by the overwhelming backing for the state of Palestine in New York last week. Only eight countries out of 193 rallied to Israel's side in opposing the move.
Britain is furious at Israel's decision to take punitive measures, including the authorisation of 3,000 new settler homes and the development of land east of Jerusalem known as E1 for settlement construction.
The development of E1 has been frozen for years under pressure from the US and EU. Western diplomats regard it as a "game-changer" as its development would close off East Jerusalem – the future capital of Palestine – from the West Bank.
Britain has demanded that Israel rescind the decision. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said the settlement expansion plans "would represent an almost fatal blow to the remaining chances of securing a two-state solution".
The EU foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, said such expansion "may represent a strategic step undermining the prospects of a contiguous and viable Palestine with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both it and Israel".
The British Foreign Office has not reached a firm decision on its response, but it is understood to be considering a range of options, including the recall of its ambassador, Matthew Gould, and the consul general, Vincent Fean, for further discussions.
France is also considering similar action. Britain would be more inclined to forge ahead with such a dramatic diplomatic rebuke in co-ordination with other EU countries.
Other steps under consideration are sanctions against settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including tougher measures on the labelling of settlement produce exported to Europe, and the suspension of strategic dialogue meetings.
The UK and other EU countries had warned Israel against taking punitive action in response to the UN vote. A statement issued by the British embassy in Tel Aviv said: "The foreign secretary has consistently made it very clear that the UK would not support a strong reaction to Thursday's UNGA resolution that undermined the prospects for negotiations and efforts to build a strong foundation for the peace process. The recent Israeli government decision to build 3,000 new housing units threatens the two-state solution and makes progress through negotiations harder to achieve. We have called on the Israeli government to reconsider."
The Israeli cabinet unanimously rejected the UN vote at its weekly meeting on Sunday. It described the West Bank as "disputed territory" over which the Jewish people had "a natural right".
Israel's Channel 2 reported that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's former chief of staff, had described the behaviour of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, as "unfathomable".
Honestly, Hugh....does it sound at all believable to you that our government has the best interests of BOTH sides at heart? I'm happy to see you taking an interest in this topic...I also think it's good that you're being cautious in choosing a side and not easily falling to bias on one side or the other. But you have to ask yourself: with the behaviour of our current government in regards to support for the US, support for the military industrial complex, support for big oil and other groups who benefit from western colonialism - essentially all of the symptoms of neo-con sickness.....do you think you can trust our government to align itself with the moral majority and be an honest broker for peace?..... or to act in the best interests of the people who sign their cheques? You might want to factor the answer to that question into your evolving opinion on the occupation
Our government has once again placed our nation on the wrong side of history.
yes ... i would have said it much more poorly ... hahaha ...
.....do you think you can trust our government to align itself with the moral majority and be an honest broker for peace?..... or to act in the best interests of the people who sign their cheques? You might want to factor the answer to that question into your evolving opinion on the occupation
to ask another silly question.......who is "signing our cheques", and for what? I still don't understand Canada's interest in keeping Israel in charge over there. Just to keep in line with what the US wants? Because we didn't join them when they wanted our help in Iraq.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
if france and GB are so upset with israel, why are they not pushing for sanctions against israel? the latest actions by israel with expanding settlements and blatantly breaking the cease fire on multiple occasions are the actions of a rogue nation, and as such, sanctions should be applied. their actions are simply to punish the palestinian people for the actions of the rest of the un, and that is completely defying the un general assembly.
the us and gb are on the wrong side of this issue. unfortunately history will prove us wrong and we will be reviled in the same way that pope pius is reviled for doing nothing about the holocaust...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
.....do you think you can trust our government to align itself with the moral majority and be an honest broker for peace?..... or to act in the best interests of the people who sign their cheques? You might want to factor the answer to that question into your evolving opinion on the occupation
to ask another silly question.......who is "signing our cheques", and for what? I still don't understand Canada's interest in keeping Israel in charge over there. Just to keep in line with what the US wants? Because we didn't join them when they wanted our help in Iraq.
Hugh, you are asking great questions. Don't hope to get honest answers here. But, when something quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck. If you think something doesn't make sense, it probably doesn't (and vice versa). Biased answers can't get to the point of your valid queries. Keep asking, but look elsewhere for your answers.
Many here think the US, Canada, etc. support Israel blindly. But, your questions are spot on - Even if this is true, why? Perhaps, because it's really not so blindly and they see BOTH sides and have made a moral decision to do what is best even if there are those that think the easy path is right.
The fact is if Israel gave the Palestinians exactly what they wanted (other than dying which is their REAL desire), there would still not be peace for Israel.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The fact is if Israel gave the Palestinians exactly what they wanted (other than dying which is their REAL desire), there would still not be peace for Israel.
this is the most ill informed answer i have ever read.
not all palestinians want israelis dead. you know that is not the case, so please stop spouting bullshit.
also, it is outrageous to arbitrarily claim that there would not be peace even if israel gave the palestinians what they wanted. how do you know? you don't.
how about israel start abiding by international law and stop punishing the palestinian civilians simply because the UN dealt the zionists a setback?
it must really sting israel to see that less than 15 countries at the UN support their position on this issue. and if it were not for the US supporting israel they would have had even less support.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Hugh, you are asking great questions. Don't hope to get honest answers here. But, when something quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck. If you think something doesn't make sense, it probably doesn't (and vice versa). Biased answers can't get to the point of your valid queries. Keep asking, but look elsewhere for your answers.
I'm here to learn, not to be insulted.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The fact is if Israel gave the Palestinians exactly what they wanted (other than dying which is their REAL desire), there would still not be peace for Israel.
So you think that Palestinians won't be satisfied until all Israeli's are killed? Interesting. Where did you come up with this? Is it something you dreamed one night, or did you just say it because you thought it sounded good?
Who's been doing all the killing these past 60 years? I suggest you take a look at the facts. The Palestinians, including Hamas, have stated on numerous occasions that they will observe a permanent ceasefire if Israel pulls back to the 1967 borders, in line with international law.
As for there being no peace for Israel if it began abiding by international law and ended it's ethnic cleansing and land-grab, how did you come to this conclusion? Was something else you dreamed in your sleep, or is it just a convenient excuse for supporting Israeli terror and theft?
As nuclear peace talks are cancelled, overwhelming vote by general assembly calls for Israel to join nonproliferation treaty
The UN general assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling on Israel to open its nuclear programme for inspection.
The resolution, approved by a vote of 174 to six with six abstentions, calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) "without further delay" and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those voting against were Israel, the US, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.
Resolutions adopted by the 193-member general assembly are not legally binding but they do reflect world opinion and carry moral and political weight. And the resolution adds to pressure on Israel as it faces criticism over plans to increase settlement in the West Bank, a move seen as retaliation for the assembly recognising Palestinian statehood.
if you want further proof about our unwavering support for israel ... consider our response to the recent expansion announcement ... even the US condemned the expansion - yet our man Baird sits alone in his support ... brutal ...
and edson is right in so much as you should seek opinions from all sides to formulate your thoughts on this ... i will add tho that if you haven't noticed ... no one has responded to the plethora of articles posted on here countering palestinians claims ... outside of yosi - the only supporters of israel tend to repeat the same things over and over again ... claims that if you take a critical view of - really have no substance to them whatsoever ...
the whole iran/palestine wants israel wiped off the map or all jews killed is about as ignorant a viewpoint as there is ...
As nuclear peace talks are cancelled, overwhelming vote by general assembly calls for Israel to join nonproliferation treaty
The UN general assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling on Israel to open its nuclear programme for inspection.
The resolution, approved by a vote of 174 to six with six abstentions, calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) "without further delay" and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those voting against were Israel, the US, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.
Resolutions adopted by the 193-member general assembly are not legally binding but they do reflect world opinion and carry moral and political weight. And the resolution adds to pressure on Israel as it faces criticism over plans to increase settlement in the West Bank, a move seen as retaliation for the assembly recognising Palestinian statehood.
....
good.
if the israeli government wants to punk the palestinians and punish them, the rest of the world SHOULD turn up the heat. it is the moral obligation to do so.
what is the israeli government response to this?
my guess is most likely more of the same "we are the real victims" schtick...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
israel is clearly in the driver's seat in this situation. they control their own destiny. if they proceed with settlement expansion the palestinians have every right to seek restitution in international court. israel should back down because their position is indefensible and they know it.. if israel backs down then they can spare themselves any potential charges for the time being.
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — A senior Palestinian official is warning that the West Bank government will pursue war crime charges against Israel if it doesn't stop settlement construction.
Israel announced a major settlement construction push after the U.N. General Assembly recognized a de facto Palestinian state.
Palestinian official Nabil Shaath said late Monday that "many countries" have urged the Palestinian Authority not to use its new status to seek war crimes charges against Israel at the International Criminal Court, a U.N. body.
Shaath says that "by continuing these war crimes of settlement activities" on occupied territories, Israel is "pushing and forcing us to go to the ICC."
Israel has defied calls to rescind its construction plans.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Hugh, you are asking great questions. Don't hope to get honest answers here. But, when something quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck. If you think something doesn't make sense, it probably doesn't (and vice versa). Biased answers can't get to the point of your valid queries. Keep asking, but look elsewhere for your answers.
I'm here to learn, not to be insulted.
That was insulting? I meant it to be a compliment - you're asking great questions. If anything, I was insulting the lot of us (including me) and our biases and half truths. You'd be better served doing your own research, as you seem like the most level headed person here.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The fact is if Israel gave the Palestinians exactly what they wanted (other than dying which is their REAL desire), there would still not be peace for Israel.
this is the most ill informed answer i have ever read.
not all palestinians want israelis dead. you know that is not the case, so please stop spouting bullshit.
also, it is outrageous to arbitrarily claim that there would not be peace even if israel gave the palestinians what they wanted. how do you know? you don't.
how about israel start abiding by international law and stop punishing the palestinian civilians simply because the UN dealt the zionists a setback?
it must really sting israel to see that less than 15 countries at the UN support their position on this issue. and if it were not for the US supporting israel they would have had even less support.
You are right - I should not have alluded to the Palestinians that way, and been more succinct in my reference - that is more directly regarding Hamas. I have no idea what individuals think. But, I do know what Hamas and their allies think. As it is, as I have said.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Hugh, you are asking great questions. Don't hope to get honest answers here. But, when something quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck. If you think something doesn't make sense, it probably doesn't (and vice versa). Biased answers can't get to the point of your valid queries. Keep asking, but look elsewhere for your answers.
I'm here to learn, not to be insulted.
That was insulting? I meant it to be a compliment - you're asking great questions. If anything, I was insulting the lot of us (including me) and our biases and half truths. You'd be better served doing your own research, as you seem like the most level headed person here.
my apologies if I misunderstood,I felt the post was patronizing. If that was not the intent, then again, my apologies.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The US and Israel: a short quiz on 'rogue nation' status
A series of events just from this week makes clear who is actually violating the consensus of the international community
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 December 2012
The phrase "rogue nation" is one of the terms that get tossed around often in political discourse without much effort devoted to its actual meaning. Let's try to apply this term to a series of events just from the last week, beginning with this one:
"The 193-nation UN General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state . . . . There were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions. . . . .The assembly approved the upgrade despite threats by the United States and Israel to punish the Palestinians by withholding funds for the West Bank government.. . . .The Czech Republic was unique in Europe, joining the United States, Israel, Canada, Panama and tiny Pacific Island states likes Nauru, Palau and Micronesia in voting against the move."
In response, Israel announced it would "punish" the Palestinians for the UN vote by approving more settlements (which virtually the entire world deems illegal) and withholding tax revenue that was to pay employees of the Palestinian Authority; that behavior by Israel resulted in this:
"Australia and Brazil summoned their Israeli ambassadors on Tuesday to protest against Israel's decision to expand Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and withhold tax revenue from the Palestinian Authority.
"The moves followed similar actions in Europe including Spain, France, Britain, Sweden and Denmark in the wake of the Palestinians winning de facto UN recognition of statehood."
Meanwhile, it was reported today that "Britain and other European countries will consider 'further steps' if Israel refuses to reverse its plans for settlement expansion after a wave of diplomatic protests." And then finally, we have this, from Monday [emphasis added]:
"The UN general assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling on Israel to open its nuclear programme for inspection.
"The resolution, approved by a vote of 174 to six with six abstentions, calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) 'without further delay' and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those voting against were Israel, the US, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. . . .
"The vote came as a sequel to the cancellation of a high-level conference aimed at banning nuclear weapons from the Middle East. All the Arab nations and Iran had planned to attend the summit in mid-December in Helsinki, Finland, but the US announced on 23 November that it would not take place, citing political turmoil in the region and Iran's defiant stance on non-proliferation. Iran and some Arab nations countered that the real reason for the cancellation was Israel's refusal to attend."
So essentially, it's the entire planet on one side, versus the US, its new right-wing poodle to the north, Israel, and three tiny, bribed islands on the other side.
If you're a member in good standing of the Washington-based US foreign policy community, then the way you describe these matters is as follows: "the international community stands by Israel and supports its position" - because, in that warped, self-affirming world, "international community" is a synonym for "US dictates".
But for those fortunate enough to reside outside of that realm of intense imperial propaganda: who is actually opposed to the consensus of the international community here? In other words, who are the real "rogue nations"?
Any Nation that does not let there people live a free life is a rogue nation. In other words free of dictators, free of mandatory religion, a government free off condoning pedophilia, free of pubic torture, free of condoning zero respect of women, free of condoning death for all Jews or any other religion. That is just a few examples.
Get rid of Hamas and all other murdering organizations and I believe Israel and other nations could live together.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — The Palestinians will ask the U.N. Security Council to demand a halt to construction of two large Israeli settlements near Jerusalem, a senior Palestinian official said Wednesday.
The Security Council bid is part of an escalating international showdown over Israeli settlement building plans the Palestinians see as a final blow to Mideast peace hopes.
The Palestinians hope to get a binding U.N. resolution — something that would require that the U.S. does not cast a veto in the Security Council as it did nearly two years ago to shield close ally Israel from censure over the settlements.
The U.S. would have to block the construction through other means if it wants to avoid a veto, said the Palestinian official, Saeb Erekat. Israel, already increasingly isolated over its settlement policy, could flout a Security Council decision, but at a high diplomatic cost.
Israel has built dozens of settlements for half a million Israelis since it captured the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem in 1967. This has made an eventual partition of the land, the internationally backed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, increasingly difficult.
However, the Palestinians are particularly concerned about plans for more than 7,500 apartments and hundreds of hotel rooms in two future settlements, known as E-1 and Givat Hamatos, on the eastern and southern edges of Jerusalem.
Critics say the settlements would cut off traditionally Arab east Jerusalem from its West Bank hinterland and destroy hopes of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel, with Jerusalem as a shared capital.
Israel had frozen E-1 plans under pressure from successive U.S. administrations, but revived them last week, after the U.N. General Assembly accepted Palestine in the pre-1967 lines as a non-member observer state. Meanwhile, Givat Hamatos is moving forward, with a district planning committee to meet in mid-December for the next approval stage.
Late Tuesday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with senior officials in the PLO and his Fatah movement to decide on the next steps. The group decided to seek Security Council intervention, said Erekat, a senior Abbas aide.
The Palestinians want the council to demand, in a binding resolution, that Israel revoke its decisions to build E-1 and Givat Hamatos, Erekat told The Associated Press.
"If the Israelis build E-1 and Givat Hamatos, it means the idea of peace, the idea of a two-state solution, will disappear," he said.
He said the U.S. should pressure Israel if it wants to avoid Security Council action.
"If the U.S. can stop the Israelis without the Security Council, they should do it," he said. "They (the Americans) cannot stop us and use the veto against people trying to save the peace process."
Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman was not immediately available for comment. Israeli officials have defended the new settlement plans as a measured response to the Palestinian U.N. bid, which Israel claims violates agreements between the two sides.
In February 2011, 14 Security Council members voted for a resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction on occupied lands as illegal. The U.S. cast a veto, saying that while it agreed settlements are illegitimate, the resolution harms chances for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
Such talks have been frozen for the past four years, with Palestinians saying they cannot go back to the table as long as Israel keeps building on occupied land and pre-empts the outcome of negotiations. Israel argues there should be no conditions for talks.
After last week's General Assembly vote, Israel appeared increasingly isolated, facing strident international criticism of its continued construction on war-won land the world overwhelmingly said belongs to the Palestinians.
More than half a dozen countries have summoned local Israeli ambassadors since the beginning of the week to protest the latest building plans. British Foreign Secretary William Hague told the British parliament Tuesday that there might be further diplomatic steps, though he suggested Europe is not considering economic sanctions against Israel for now.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Any Nation that does not let there people live a free life is a rogue nation. In other words free of dictators, free of mandatory religion, a government free off condoning pedophilia, free of pubic torture, free of condoning zero respect of women, free of condoning death for all Jews or any other religion. That is just a few examples.
Get rid of Hamas and all other murdering organizations and I believe Israel and other nations could live together.
if israel would change their policies there would be no hamas.
the palestinians can not live in peace if israel keeps stealing land and keeping them under apartheid conditions.
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and patriot.
would you fight to keep your land from being stolen?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Any Nation that does not let there people live a free life is a rogue nation. In other words free of dictators, free of mandatory religion, a government free off condoning pedophilia, free of pubic torture, free of condoning zero respect of women, free of condoning death for all Jews or any other religion. That is just a few examples.
Get rid of Hamas and all other murdering organizations and I believe Israel and other nations could live together.
if israel would change their policies there would be no hamas.
the palestinians can not live in peace if israel keeps stealing land and keeping them under apartheid conditions.
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and patriot.
would you fight to keep your land from being stolen?
Yes I would......but I would never negotiate with terrorist.....
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Any Nation that does not let there people live a free life is a rogue nation. In other words free of dictators, free of mandatory religion, a government free off condoning pedophilia, free of pubic torture, free of condoning zero respect of women, free of condoning death for all Jews or any other religion. That is just a few examples.
There she goes again: first she claimed that Muslims are sodomites, and now they're pedophiles.
Care to share with us where you got this information?
Any Nation that does not let there people live a free life is a rogue nation. In other words free of dictators, free of mandatory religion, a government free off condoning pedophilia, free of pubic torture, free of condoning zero respect of women, free of condoning death for all Jews or any other religion. That is just a few examples.
Get rid of Hamas and all other murdering organizations and I believe Israel and other nations could live together.
if israel would change their policies there would be no hamas.
the palestinians can not live in peace if israel keeps stealing land and keeping them under apartheid conditions.
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and patriot.
would you fight to keep your land from being stolen?
Terrorist are NOTHING like freedom fighters or Patriots.
Freedom Fighters and Patriots are fighting for Freedom.... Terrorist are fighting for submission
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Terrorist are NOTHING like freedom fighters or Patriots.
Freedom Fighters and Patriots are fighting for Freedom.... Terrorist are fighting for submission
Terrorism is the premeditated and or the deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threats to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.
Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
—Walter Laqueur
Post edited by aerial on
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Any Nation that does not let there people live a free life is a rogue nation. In other words free of dictators, free of mandatory religion, a government free off condoning pedophilia, free of pubic torture, free of condoning zero respect of women, free of condoning death for all Jews or any other religion. That is just a few examples.
Get rid of Hamas and all other murdering organizations and I believe Israel and other nations could live together.
if israel would change their policies there would be no hamas.
the palestinians can not live in peace if israel keeps stealing land and keeping them under apartheid conditions.
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and patriot.
would you fight to keep your land from being stolen?
Terrorist are NOTHING like freedom fighters or Patriots.
Freedom Fighters and Patriots are fighting for Freedom.... Terrorist are fighting for submission
No link for this just common sense if you stay informed.......Just to be clear I am referring to Islamic Terrorist
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... us-support
The 'both-sides-are-awful' dismissal of Gaza ignores the key role of the US government
The temptation to wash one's hands of the whole conflict is understandable, but US support of Israel is a central force driving it all
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 November 2012
'...For years now, US financial, military and diplomatic support of Israel has been the central enabling force driving this endless conflict. The bombs Israel drops on Gazans, and the planes they use to drop them, and the weapons they use to occupy the West Bank and protect settlements are paid for, in substantial part, by the US taxpayer, and those actions are shielded from recrimination by the UN veto power aggressively wielded in Israel's favor by the US government.
...Just consider the actions of the US over the last week as violence in Gaza escalated. On Tuesday, the US vetoed a UN Security Council cease-fire resolution on the ground, in essence, that it was too balanced. The US State Department publicly attacked its Nato ally, Turkey, for condemning Israeli aggression. As always, the US Congress and the US Executive Branch are virtually unanimous in their full-throated, completely one-sided support for Israeli actions.
...If one wants to try to wash one's hands of this entire matter by declaring both sides equally culpable, that's fine. But doing so requires an acknowledgment that the US government is doing nothing of the sort. It is fueling, funding and feeding the Israeli war machine, and, with its own militaristic conduct, is legitimizing the premises of Israeli aggression.
This is exactly what I was referencing when I wrote on Saturday that one must stop pretending that the US is some sort of helpless, uninvolved party in this war between two distant, foreign entities. That is complete fiction. If an American citizen really wants to advocate for neutrality on the ground that both sides are equally horrible and they're sick of the whole conflict and wish it would all just go away, then the place to begin with that advocacy is US government policy which, as unpleasant as it might be to face, has long been, and remains more than ever, a key force that drives the bloodshed.'
The Canadian people are interested in what is best for both sides:
Globescan for the BBC:
46% support recognition of a Palestinian state, 6% would abstain, 25% would oppose
Angus Reid:
In Canada, 43 per cent of respondents also want their own government to recognize a Palestinian state, while 31 per cent disagree. (Regarding the 2011 Statehood) request from the Palestinian Authority....half of Britons (50%), a slightly smaller proportion of Canadians (45%) and a third of Americans (34%) calling for the world body to support the bid for full statehood.
If you look at other polls, like the one done by Avaaz last week, they are much more lop-sided....
Canada's (the Harper) government is interested in what's best for Israel:
A staunch ally of Israel, he blocked the planned recommendations on Mideast peace talks even though the terms are a key part of U.S. President Barack Obama's campaign to revive negotiations as pro-democracy movements sprout in the Arab world.
But Mr. Harper said those terms were only part of the position Mr. Obama laid out in a May 19 speech. The Prime Minister said he couldn't accept mention of Israel's 1967 borders unless the G8 also referred to Mr. Obama's calls for Palestinian concessions.
"You can't cherry pick elements of that speech," Mr. Harper told reporters at the close of the summit.
"I think if you're going to get into other elements, obviously I would like to see reference to elements that were also in President Obama's speech. Such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be demilitarized."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... state.html
In counter to the Israeli talking point echoed by the US and amplified by our government: that any lasting peace agreement must be negotiated bilaterally, and the UN statehood bid (in '11) and the bid for observer state status (granted the other day) were unilateral moves by the Palestinians, Dr Norman Finkelstein has argued that the Palestinians want to use as their baseline for peace negotiations and a two-state solution - international law and opinion...ie: the pre-1967 borders. The Israeli's baseline for peace negotiations is arbitrary - they want to begin negotiations with a starting point based on their own terms and borders.
Harper blocked any mention of the 67 borders in the final communique from the G8 summit in France last year. This week our foreign minister went to the UN specifically to threaten Palestine. Our government's stance is widely considered more in line with Israel than even the US, traditionally Israel's staunchest supporter. As an aside, since I'm mentioning both Finkelstein and our goverment - the Harper Cons, thru immigration minister Jason Kenney, tried to ban Finkelstein from speaking in our country in 2010. And I can see why. The Finkelstein talk I attended at the UofA was a turning point for me on this topic. The fact that our government doesn't want our students hearing the other side shows their (lack of) objectivity.
Honestly, Hugh....does it sound at all believable to you that our government has the best interests of BOTH sides at heart? I'm happy to see you taking an interest in this topic...I also think it's good that you're being cautious in choosing a side and not easily falling to bias on one side or the other. But you have to ask yourself: with the behaviour of our current government in regards to support for the US, support for the military industrial complex, support for big oil and other groups who benefit from western colonialism - essentially all of the symptoms of neo-con sickness.....do you think you can trust our government to align itself with the moral majority and be an honest broker for peace?..... or to act in the best interests of the people who sign their cheques? You might want to factor the answer to that question into your evolving opinion on the occupation
Our government has once again placed our nation on the wrong side of history.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... settlement
UK may recall Israel ambassador over settlement plan
Foreign Office considers withdrawing diplomats after Israel authorised 3,000 new homes in the wake of UN vote on Palestine
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk
Monday 3 December 2012
Britain is considering tough diplomatic measures, including the possible recall of its ambassador to Tel Aviv, in response to Israel's announcement of settlement expansion. Its move followed the vote by the United Nations general assembly to recognise the Palestinian state.
The recall of the British ambassador would be a dramatic and unprecedented rebuke to the Israeli government, whose isolation was sharply illustrated by the overwhelming backing for the state of Palestine in New York last week. Only eight countries out of 193 rallied to Israel's side in opposing the move.
Britain is furious at Israel's decision to take punitive measures, including the authorisation of 3,000 new settler homes and the development of land east of Jerusalem known as E1 for settlement construction.
The development of E1 has been frozen for years under pressure from the US and EU. Western diplomats regard it as a "game-changer" as its development would close off East Jerusalem – the future capital of Palestine – from the West Bank.
Britain has demanded that Israel rescind the decision. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said the settlement expansion plans "would represent an almost fatal blow to the remaining chances of securing a two-state solution".
The EU foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, said such expansion "may represent a strategic step undermining the prospects of a contiguous and viable Palestine with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both it and Israel".
The British Foreign Office has not reached a firm decision on its response, but it is understood to be considering a range of options, including the recall of its ambassador, Matthew Gould, and the consul general, Vincent Fean, for further discussions.
France is also considering similar action. Britain would be more inclined to forge ahead with such a dramatic diplomatic rebuke in co-ordination with other EU countries.
Other steps under consideration are sanctions against settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including tougher measures on the labelling of settlement produce exported to Europe, and the suspension of strategic dialogue meetings.
The UK and other EU countries had warned Israel against taking punitive action in response to the UN vote. A statement issued by the British embassy in Tel Aviv said: "The foreign secretary has consistently made it very clear that the UK would not support a strong reaction to Thursday's UNGA resolution that undermined the prospects for negotiations and efforts to build a strong foundation for the peace process. The recent Israeli government decision to build 3,000 new housing units threatens the two-state solution and makes progress through negotiations harder to achieve. We have called on the Israeli government to reconsider."
The Israeli cabinet unanimously rejected the UN vote at its weekly meeting on Sunday. It described the West Bank as "disputed territory" over which the Jewish people had "a natural right".
Israel's Channel 2 reported that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's former chief of staff, had described the behaviour of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, as "unfathomable".
yes ... i would have said it much more poorly ... hahaha ...
to ask another silly question.......who is "signing our cheques", and for what? I still don't understand Canada's interest in keeping Israel in charge over there. Just to keep in line with what the US wants? Because we didn't join them when they wanted our help in Iraq.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
the us and gb are on the wrong side of this issue. unfortunately history will prove us wrong and we will be reviled in the same way that pope pius is reviled for doing nothing about the holocaust...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Hugh, you are asking great questions. Don't hope to get honest answers here. But, when something quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck. If you think something doesn't make sense, it probably doesn't (and vice versa). Biased answers can't get to the point of your valid queries. Keep asking, but look elsewhere for your answers.
Many here think the US, Canada, etc. support Israel blindly. But, your questions are spot on - Even if this is true, why? Perhaps, because it's really not so blindly and they see BOTH sides and have made a moral decision to do what is best even if there are those that think the easy path is right.
The fact is if Israel gave the Palestinians exactly what they wanted (other than dying which is their REAL desire), there would still not be peace for Israel.
not all palestinians want israelis dead. you know that is not the case, so please stop spouting bullshit.
also, it is outrageous to arbitrarily claim that there would not be peace even if israel gave the palestinians what they wanted. how do you know? you don't.
how about israel start abiding by international law and stop punishing the palestinian civilians simply because the UN dealt the zionists a setback?
it must really sting israel to see that less than 15 countries at the UN support their position on this issue. and if it were not for the US supporting israel they would have had even less support.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm here to learn, not to be insulted.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
So you think that Palestinians won't be satisfied until all Israeli's are killed? Interesting. Where did you come up with this? Is it something you dreamed one night, or did you just say it because you thought it sounded good?
Who's been doing all the killing these past 60 years? I suggest you take a look at the facts. The Palestinians, including Hamas, have stated on numerous occasions that they will observe a permanent ceasefire if Israel pulls back to the 1967 borders, in line with international law.
As for there being no peace for Israel if it began abiding by international law and ended it's ethnic cleansing and land-grab, how did you come to this conclusion? Was something else you dreamed in your sleep, or is it just a convenient excuse for supporting Israeli terror and theft?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/de ... inspectors
UN tells Israel to let in nuclear inspectors
As nuclear peace talks are cancelled, overwhelming vote by general assembly calls for Israel to join nonproliferation treaty
The UN general assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling on Israel to open its nuclear programme for inspection.
The resolution, approved by a vote of 174 to six with six abstentions, calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) "without further delay" and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those voting against were Israel, the US, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.
Resolutions adopted by the 193-member general assembly are not legally binding but they do reflect world opinion and carry moral and political weight. And the resolution adds to pressure on Israel as it faces criticism over plans to increase settlement in the West Bank, a move seen as retaliation for the assembly recognising Palestinian statehood.
....
if you want further proof about our unwavering support for israel ... consider our response to the recent expansion announcement ... even the US condemned the expansion - yet our man Baird sits alone in his support ... brutal ...
and edson is right in so much as you should seek opinions from all sides to formulate your thoughts on this ... i will add tho that if you haven't noticed ... no one has responded to the plethora of articles posted on here countering palestinians claims ... outside of yosi - the only supporters of israel tend to repeat the same things over and over again ... claims that if you take a critical view of - really have no substance to them whatsoever ...
the whole iran/palestine wants israel wiped off the map or all jews killed is about as ignorant a viewpoint as there is ...
if the israeli government wants to punk the palestinians and punish them, the rest of the world SHOULD turn up the heat. it is the moral obligation to do so.
what is the israeli government response to this?
my guess is most likely more of the same "we are the real victims" schtick...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
israel is clearly in the driver's seat in this situation. they control their own destiny. if they proceed with settlement expansion the palestinians have every right to seek restitution in international court. israel should back down because their position is indefensible and they know it.. if israel backs down then they can spare themselves any potential charges for the time being.
Israel could face Palestinian war crimes charges
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-could-face ... 00623.html
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — A senior Palestinian official is warning that the West Bank government will pursue war crime charges against Israel if it doesn't stop settlement construction.
Israel announced a major settlement construction push after the U.N. General Assembly recognized a de facto Palestinian state.
Palestinian official Nabil Shaath said late Monday that "many countries" have urged the Palestinian Authority not to use its new status to seek war crimes charges against Israel at the International Criminal Court, a U.N. body.
Shaath says that "by continuing these war crimes of settlement activities" on occupied territories, Israel is "pushing and forcing us to go to the ICC."
Israel has defied calls to rescind its construction plans.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
That was insulting? I meant it to be a compliment - you're asking great questions. If anything, I was insulting the lot of us (including me) and our biases and half truths. You'd be better served doing your own research, as you seem like the most level headed person here.
You are right - I should not have alluded to the Palestinians that way, and been more succinct in my reference - that is more directly regarding Hamas. I have no idea what individuals think. But, I do know what Hamas and their allies think. As it is, as I have said.
my apologies if I misunderstood,I felt the post was patronizing. If that was not the intent, then again, my apologies.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The US and Israel: a short quiz on 'rogue nation' status
A series of events just from this week makes clear who is actually violating the consensus of the international community
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 December 2012
The phrase "rogue nation" is one of the terms that get tossed around often in political discourse without much effort devoted to its actual meaning. Let's try to apply this term to a series of events just from the last week, beginning with this one:
"The 193-nation UN General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state . . . . There were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions. . . . .The assembly approved the upgrade despite threats by the United States and Israel to punish the Palestinians by withholding funds for the West Bank government.. . . .The Czech Republic was unique in Europe, joining the United States, Israel, Canada, Panama and tiny Pacific Island states likes Nauru, Palau and Micronesia in voting against the move."
In response, Israel announced it would "punish" the Palestinians for the UN vote by approving more settlements (which virtually the entire world deems illegal) and withholding tax revenue that was to pay employees of the Palestinian Authority; that behavior by Israel resulted in this:
"Australia and Brazil summoned their Israeli ambassadors on Tuesday to protest against Israel's decision to expand Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and withhold tax revenue from the Palestinian Authority.
"The moves followed similar actions in Europe including Spain, France, Britain, Sweden and Denmark in the wake of the Palestinians winning de facto UN recognition of statehood."
Meanwhile, it was reported today that "Britain and other European countries will consider 'further steps' if Israel refuses to reverse its plans for settlement expansion after a wave of diplomatic protests." And then finally, we have this, from Monday [emphasis added]:
"The UN general assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling on Israel to open its nuclear programme for inspection.
"The resolution, approved by a vote of 174 to six with six abstentions, calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) 'without further delay' and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those voting against were Israel, the US, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. . . .
"The vote came as a sequel to the cancellation of a high-level conference aimed at banning nuclear weapons from the Middle East. All the Arab nations and Iran had planned to attend the summit in mid-December in Helsinki, Finland, but the US announced on 23 November that it would not take place, citing political turmoil in the region and Iran's defiant stance on non-proliferation. Iran and some Arab nations countered that the real reason for the cancellation was Israel's refusal to attend."
So essentially, it's the entire planet on one side, versus the US, its new right-wing poodle to the north, Israel, and three tiny, bribed islands on the other side.
If you're a member in good standing of the Washington-based US foreign policy community, then the way you describe these matters is as follows: "the international community stands by Israel and supports its position" - because, in that warped, self-affirming world, "international community" is a synonym for "US dictates".
But for those fortunate enough to reside outside of that realm of intense imperial propaganda: who is actually opposed to the consensus of the international community here? In other words, who are the real "rogue nations"?
Get rid of Hamas and all other murdering organizations and I believe Israel and other nations could live together.
http://news.yahoo.com/palestinians-un-s ... 00565.html
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — The Palestinians will ask the U.N. Security Council to demand a halt to construction of two large Israeli settlements near Jerusalem, a senior Palestinian official said Wednesday.
The Security Council bid is part of an escalating international showdown over Israeli settlement building plans the Palestinians see as a final blow to Mideast peace hopes.
The Palestinians hope to get a binding U.N. resolution — something that would require that the U.S. does not cast a veto in the Security Council as it did nearly two years ago to shield close ally Israel from censure over the settlements.
The U.S. would have to block the construction through other means if it wants to avoid a veto, said the Palestinian official, Saeb Erekat. Israel, already increasingly isolated over its settlement policy, could flout a Security Council decision, but at a high diplomatic cost.
Israel has built dozens of settlements for half a million Israelis since it captured the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem in 1967. This has made an eventual partition of the land, the internationally backed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, increasingly difficult.
However, the Palestinians are particularly concerned about plans for more than 7,500 apartments and hundreds of hotel rooms in two future settlements, known as E-1 and Givat Hamatos, on the eastern and southern edges of Jerusalem.
Critics say the settlements would cut off traditionally Arab east Jerusalem from its West Bank hinterland and destroy hopes of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel, with Jerusalem as a shared capital.
Israel had frozen E-1 plans under pressure from successive U.S. administrations, but revived them last week, after the U.N. General Assembly accepted Palestine in the pre-1967 lines as a non-member observer state. Meanwhile, Givat Hamatos is moving forward, with a district planning committee to meet in mid-December for the next approval stage.
Late Tuesday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with senior officials in the PLO and his Fatah movement to decide on the next steps. The group decided to seek Security Council intervention, said Erekat, a senior Abbas aide.
The Palestinians want the council to demand, in a binding resolution, that Israel revoke its decisions to build E-1 and Givat Hamatos, Erekat told The Associated Press.
"If the Israelis build E-1 and Givat Hamatos, it means the idea of peace, the idea of a two-state solution, will disappear," he said.
He said the U.S. should pressure Israel if it wants to avoid Security Council action.
"If the U.S. can stop the Israelis without the Security Council, they should do it," he said. "They (the Americans) cannot stop us and use the veto against people trying to save the peace process."
Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman was not immediately available for comment. Israeli officials have defended the new settlement plans as a measured response to the Palestinian U.N. bid, which Israel claims violates agreements between the two sides.
In February 2011, 14 Security Council members voted for a resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction on occupied lands as illegal. The U.S. cast a veto, saying that while it agreed settlements are illegitimate, the resolution harms chances for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
Such talks have been frozen for the past four years, with Palestinians saying they cannot go back to the table as long as Israel keeps building on occupied land and pre-empts the outcome of negotiations. Israel argues there should be no conditions for talks.
After last week's General Assembly vote, Israel appeared increasingly isolated, facing strident international criticism of its continued construction on war-won land the world overwhelmingly said belongs to the Palestinians.
More than half a dozen countries have summoned local Israeli ambassadors since the beginning of the week to protest the latest building plans. British Foreign Secretary William Hague told the British parliament Tuesday that there might be further diplomatic steps, though he suggested Europe is not considering economic sanctions against Israel for now.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the palestinians can not live in peace if israel keeps stealing land and keeping them under apartheid conditions.
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and patriot.
would you fight to keep your land from being stolen?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yes I would......but I would never negotiate with terrorist.....
There she goes again: first she claimed that Muslims are sodomites, and now they're pedophiles.
Care to share with us where you got this information?
Talking of murdering organizations, have you seen what Israel's been doing to it's neighbours these past 60 years?
What's your definition of terrorism?
Terrorist are NOTHING like freedom fighters or Patriots.
Freedom Fighters and Patriots are fighting for Freedom.... Terrorist are fighting for submission
Link please.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/terrordef.html
Terrorism is the premeditated and or the deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threats to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.
Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
—Walter Laqueur
No link for this just common sense if you stay informed.......Just to be clear I am referring to Islamic Terrorist