Dr Gloom

I know it's not what you intended but this could be construed as suggesting few of the Arab countries have any democratic system at all. There are only four governments in the world that don't claim to be democratic. Vatican City, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and Brunei. Some other countries have single candidate sham elections, like Israel's buddy Egypt. But lots of Middle Eastern countries have multiple candidate elections. I'd agree that Israel probably has the most transparent elections in the region, but even so, according to the 2008 Democracy Index, it's a "flawed democracy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index yeah, but look at place like iran and syria. none of us used to living in a western democracy could ever live in those countries. on the other hand, if you take away the threat of bombings in israel, i'd wager many of us could live a happy life there. tel aviv is similar to any european city in the med I think that's a different question, whether or not we as western democrats could integrate into a society has little to do with their election process.. I know people that do live and work under an authritarian regime in Saudi Arabia. Qatar explicitly uses Sharia law as the basis of its government, but the quality of life is deemed to be about the same as Israel. not sure i'd fancy living in qatar if i was a woman I'd prefer it to living in occupied Gaza as a man or a woman. but not israel, which was the point i was making

one thing i find slightly ironic is how it is considered liberal to now side with the islamists. by definition, israel is far more liberal than any of the surrounding countries

i'm only going on my own experience of people i have met in israel, who on the whole have been open-minded and liberal. i'm sure there is widespread prejudice there, as in most countries in the world. but in israel, just like here in the uk, i wouldn't rush to mix with such people. one point i'd like to make, is my auntie used to be a "peacenik" and a leading member of the peace now movement. she campaigned for the tweo state solution and remember that it was very close int he mid 90s until rabin was shot. anyway, the song they used to sing was "we shall overcome". quite different from "death to the jews" or "gaza or martyrdom" that was the battlecry of many on the flotilla - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKi1YeBcMw now, like many israelis who in the past were peace activists, my auntie has become old and cynical and now thinks that a majority in gaza (and certainly those that voted hamas) do not seek peace. she sees them as islamic jihadists bent on murdering as many jews and others as possible and spreading havoc in the world until they achieve their ultimate goal: an islamic world. the prejudice and hatred increases with ever act of violence and retalitaion and sadly will rumble on for generations to come it seems.

I know it's not what you intended but this could be construed as suggesting few of the Arab countries have any democratic system at all. There are only four governments in the world that don't claim to be democratic. Vatican City, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and Brunei. Some other countries have single candidate sham elections, like Israel's buddy Egypt. But lots of Middle Eastern countries have multiple candidate elections. I'd agree that Israel probably has the most transparent elections in the region, but even so, according to the 2008 Democracy Index, it's a "flawed democracy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index yeah, but look at place like iran and syria. none of us used to living in a western democracy could ever live in those countries. on the other hand, if you take away the threat of bombings in israel, i'd wager many of us could live a happy life there. tel aviv is similar to any european city in the med I think that's a different question, whether or not we as western democrats could integrate into a society has little to do with their election process.. I know people that do live and work under an authritarian regime in Saudi Arabia. Qatar explicitly uses Sharia law as the basis of its government, but the quality of life is deemed to be about the same as Israel. not sure i'd fancy living in qatar if i was a woman

that is true as far as jewish people in israel are concernd - my cousin had to travel to cyprus for her civil ceremony because she isn't religious. i'm not sure if the same applies to arabs that live there. even if it does, the country is a real democracy and so much more civilised - if you ask me - than the islamic dictatorships that surround it. lots of arabs live in israel because they can have a better quality of life - it is a western democracy and there are lots of job opportunities - that's despite the risks involved in living there. Of course, the fact that there is a democratic system is better than just about all the Arab countries, its just a shame the right wing loons have too much power. As I've never been there, I have the image that they are second class citizens due to their ethnicity, and are viewed with suspicion in the same way the Irish were when the IRA were at their worst. It may not be the case at all, I have never been to Israel. Since you are part Jewish, I'll ask another question. What's with the big curly sideburns the Orthodox Jews have? And that particular style of hat? in my experience jews and arabs live in peace in harmony. that's not to say there isn't prejudice and racism there. what i would say though is that my israeli cousins have arab friends. when i have been there i have been out for drinks with israeli arabs, eaten at arab restuarants etc. the sidburn thing, i have no idea where that comes from. i can't understand either why the hasidics want to make sure they look as ugly as possible too. and can you imagine wearing those overcoats and hats in the israeli climate? as you can imagine, they don't smell good either. but honestly, they feel like a minority in israel. normal looking people make up the mjaority but it's these right wingers that seem to have a lot of influence, sadly.

I know it's not what you intended but this could be construed as suggesting few of the Arab countries have any democratic system at all. There are only four governments in the world that don't claim to be democratic. Vatican City, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and Brunei. Some other countries have single candidate sham elections, like Israel's buddy Egypt. But lots of Middle Eastern countries have multiple candidate elections. I'd agree that Israel probably has the most transparent elections in the region, but even so, according to the 2008 Democracy Index, it's a "flawed democracy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index yeah, but look at place like iran and syria. none of us used to living in a western democracy could ever live in those countries. on the other hand, if you take away the threat of bombings in israel, i'd wager many of us could live a happy life there. tel aviv is similar to any european city in the med

economically, yes. it has big, engineering, biotech and high tech industries. i don't think israel even went into recession during the global financial crisis. israel has loan guarantees with the amaericza of course but hasn't been forced to use it. military support from the us is vital not just for israel but the whole middle east region. if america were to ever withdraw its support for israel there would almost certainly be a very destructive war in the middle east.

that is true as far as jewish people in israel are concernd - my cousin had to travel to cyprus for her civil ceremony because she isn't religious. i'm not sure if the same applies to arabs that live there. even if it does, the country is a real democracy and so much more civilised - if you ask me - than the islamic dictatorships that surround it. lots of arabs live in israel because they can have a better quality of life - it is a western democracy and there are lots of job opportunities - that's despite the risks involved in living there.

technically, i'm 100 per cent part of the tribe. according to jewish law, it all goes through the mother. that said, i have only ever attended a synagogue as a tourist. i was brought up an atheist. You say that mate, but the Jews believe it's all in the blood, hence your right of return. Next thing you know you're growing a beard, playing chess -watching 'The Shoa' on repeat and gathering around one candle in the evening with your extended family figuring out ways of scaming money from the Germans. holocaust denier

technically, i'm 100 per cent part of the tribe. according to jewish law, it all goes through the mother. that said, i have only ever attended a synagogue as a tourist. i was brought up an atheist.

Interesting to contrast these two views. Rocket attacks rarely kill more than single figures. More often than not nobody is killed. It's difficult to remember when the Israeli response to them has been measured, diplomatic condemnation though, it's guaranteed to be heavy-handed, military and fatal. Which you seem to be suggesting is appropriate, given the fear they create. Terrible as they are, I think mitigation comes from them being fired from occupied territory engaged in resistance. However, here we have Israel killing 9 people in international waters in what amounts (according to the lawyers) to an act of war against Turkey, and you think the measured, diplomatic condemnation and calls for an investigation (that have already been rejected by Israel and the US...and therefore the UN) is "massively overblown". i'm not disputing that. when the israelis attack the palestinians the casualties are almost always vastly higher than vice versa. but that doesn't mean rocket attacks aren't dangerous. i wouldn't fancy it if people were firing them into england from wales. my family in israel live in constant danger - they don't fear for their lives because that threat is part of every day life over there and they become used to it. you never know when the next sucide bomber is going to attack. that said, the wall - though widely condemned - has made a big difference in reducing the number of suicide bombings in israel. but i repeat, the idf were blatantly attacked as they landed on the boat - see earlier photo and video evidence in thread. did they over-react? when you look at the casualties you would have to say yes. but there had to be a reaction. the 5 other ships all followed the idf instructions to dock so the aid could be checked and safely transported by israeli military. there would have been no casualties if the 6th boat had done likewise.

A guilt therapist's wet dream. The only thing you said which I'd question is that if most Israelis are liberals and/or sympathetic why do they keep electing leaders like Netanyahu? Or is this another argument against PR/coalition governments? you should meet my brother. he makes woody allen look like a balanced human being. most israelis i have met are liberal but i'm sure there are plenty of hardline nutcase wankers out there too who spoil it for most ordinary people.

sherry? are you a 60+ year old grandma? no bats in london but there are shitloads of urban foxes everywhere. they're so used to living around humans now that i half expect to see one sat outside my house in a deck chair, wearing shades and puffing on a snout. still, better the foxes than the rats.

He must be, his arguments are that slanted and wierd.

I don't doubt there were a few people up for a ruck but lets not pretend the poor little Israeli soldiers had no option but to defend themselves with Mac-10s. The videos are edited for a reason. the israeli soilders reacted, but there is no doubt at all that they were provoked. were the majority of those on board really peace activists? this is an interesting report. most of the idf that landed on the boat were armed with paint ball guns http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1213...121348851234252 There's 9 dead and many more injured isn't there? Dr Gloom, are you on the wind up? The Israeli army approached peaceful vessels carrying no weapons in international waters, boarded, killed 9 people, injured 60 and kidnapped 600 because they were "provoked"....anyone videoed defending themselves from the illegal attack were "provoking" them and deserved to be shot to death. Undoubtedly this is how some are portraying it, I can't imagine anyone with an ounce of intelligence or integrity (by which i mean people without a vested interest in keeping Israeli relations sweet) going along with it though. no, i'm not on the wind up. as always though there are two sides to this story. i agree that there was an over reaction from the idf but i'm not as quick to condem israel as some others. as far as israel is concerned the blockade needs to exist to stop weapons getting into gaza. remember that hamas wants israel wiped off the face of the planet. opinion in israel is divided but remember that many normal israelis back a two state solution. but putting politics and whether you're for or against israel aside, the point of discussion is how the israeli soldiers acted. i agree they were heavy handed but to say those on the boat came in peace is questionable. How much longer is this lie going to be repeated? That's not the case. It doesn't matter what the majority of people want. I have no problem with the Israeli majority. The majority of Palestinians back a two state solution too...as do their leaders. The problem is the Israeli leadership don't....why would they when America fully support them whatever war crimes they commit. i agree that netanyahu is the worst possible leader israel can have when you look at the prospects for the peace process, worse than sharon even. why do you say that's a lie? this from wikipedia: Hamas's 1988 charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. After the elections, in April, 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar did not rule out the possibility of accepting a temporary two-state solution, but also stated that he dreamed "of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it . . . . I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize). . . . This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land. When you use language like "wipe them off the map" it harks back to the false claims made against dinner jacket and Iran which get repeated ad infinitum, rather than any of the less emotive quotes like you've provided. If he'd ever said something like that as an elected leader it would be contemptable. Similarly if the current leader of Hamas said it, or if the Hamas manifesto that got them into power said it. But none of those did. The 1988 charter is 22 years old. Back then we supported Saddam Hussein. Things change. Their ultimate aim at that time was the restoration of 'ancient palestinian', but they've shown willing to compromise on that since. We have ex-IRA getting elected to parliament so we can have peace in the UK. We (collectively) don't hold a grudge about things that happened quarter of a century ago which perpetuates the violence. i don't see hamas willing to compromise. they want israel gone. that's why israel has to defend itself and its borders against it. you can argue that hamas are terrorists, you can argue that their freedom fighters. likewise for israel, they're either defending their borders or they're occupying palestine. depends on which side you;re on. as far as i can tell from reading this thread, most on here are on the side of the palestinians. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israel flimsy pre-electioneering, the sentiment is still the same. quotes from that article include this from Gazi Hamad, a Hamas candidate in the Gaza Strip: "Hamas is still not ready to recognise the right of Israel to exist," as long as they take that view and don't consider the possibility of a two state solution, this situation will continue. that said, there are those on the right in israel who are just as bad in my eyes. the right ring orthodox cronies and those idiots who won't withdraw from the settlements. it's those same right wing nutcases that were behind the assasination of rabin, which ultimately led to defeat in the election in the mid 90s to netanyahu, the failure of the oslo accord and the hopeless situation we find ourselves in today.

You started the thread, dickhead. i was hoping someone might have some good news. anyway i'm starting from now, turd burglar

I don't doubt there were a few people up for a ruck but lets not pretend the poor little Israeli soldiers had no option but to defend themselves with Mac-10s. The videos are edited for a reason. the israeli soilders reacted, but there is no doubt at all that they were provoked. were the majority of those on board really peace activists? this is an interesting report. most of the idf that landed on the boat were armed with paint ball guns http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1213...121348851234252 There's 9 dead and many more injured isn't there? Dr Gloom, are you on the wind up? The Israeli army approached peaceful vessels carrying no weapons in international waters, boarded, killed 9 people, injured 60 and kidnapped 600 because they were "provoked"....anyone videoed defending themselves from the illegal attack were "provoking" them and deserved to be shot to death. Undoubtedly this is how some are portraying it, I can't imagine anyone with an ounce of intelligence or integrity (by which i mean people without a vested interest in keeping Israeli relations sweet) going along with it though. no, i'm not on the wind up. as always though there are two sides to this story. i agree that there was an over reaction from the idf but i'm not as quick to condem israel as some others. as far as israel is concerned the blockade needs to exist to stop weapons getting into gaza. remember that hamas wants israel wiped off the face of the planet. opinion in israel is divided but remember that many normal israelis back a two state solution. but putting politics and whether you're for or against israel aside, the point of discussion is how the israeli soldiers acted. i agree they were heavy handed but to say those on the boat came in peace is questionable. How much longer is this lie going to be repeated? That's not the case. It doesn't matter what the majority of people want. I have no problem with the Israeli majority. The majority of Palestinians back a two state solution too...as do their leaders. The problem is the Israeli leadership don't....why would they when America fully support them whatever war crimes they commit. i agree that netanyahu is the worst possible leader israel can have when you look at the prospects for the peace process, worse than sharon even. why do you say that's a lie? this from wikipedia: Hamas's 1988 charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. After the elections, in April, 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar did not rule out the possibility of accepting a temporary two-state solution, but also stated that he dreamed "of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it . . . . I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize). . . . This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land. When you use language like "wipe them off the map" it harks back to the false claims made against dinner jacket and Iran which get repeated ad infinitum, rather than any of the less emotive quotes like you've provided. If he'd ever said something like that as an elected leader it would be contemptable. Similarly if the current leader of Hamas said it, or if the Hamas manifesto that got them into power said it. But none of those did. The 1988 charter is 22 years old. Back then we supported Saddam Hussein. Things change. Their ultimate aim at that time was the restoration of 'ancient palestinian', but they've shown willing to compromise on that since. We have ex-IRA getting elected to parliament so we can have peace in the UK. We (collectively) don't hold a grudge about things that happened quarter of a century ago which perpetuates the violence. i don't see hamas willing to compromise. they want israel gone. that's why israel has to defend itself and its borders against it. you can argue that hamas are terrorists, you can argue that their freedom fighters. likewise for israel, they're either defending their borders or they're occupying palestine. depends on which side you;re on. as far as i can tell from reading this thread, most on here are on the side of the palestinians.

it would be class if it all went tits up at liverpool, not least because my brother is the classic glory supporting liverpool fan that grew up in the 80s. i had to suffer his gloating for years while newcastle stuggled

you assume that they are competent - the reord shows that while Israel can deploy massive force and kill people (even in Dubai) it backfires on them because there is never any sense of proportion It's the equivalent of the Glaswegian "Who you lookin' at Jimmie?" no, i agree that they often get it wrong. my point is that they over-reacted but it they were provoked. many on here think the international media is biased towards the israeli cause. i think these days the opposite is true. there are two sides to this story

carrol is one we should keep. they can have best or shola if they want

i'd say hamas are just as big players in the ethnic cleansing game as israel.

England have got no chance. We will bottle it on pens as usual

when you look at what they did in the 70s and 80s, they've underachieved since, surely?

CNN: Hamas stops flotilla aid delivered by Israel http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06....aid/index.html

smoked about ten at a wedding on saturday. wife was not happy