but how are we going to end this apartheid state, thats what id like to know.

Actually the "neither" side is winning by quite the margin.

Couldn't care less about either side in this ongoing feud.

Palestine are perpetual victims who make life harder for themselves although they are oppressed you could argue. And Israel are still riding the holocaust guilt train and it will take a strong personality to push them off that wave of thinking.

Well yes; in this post Brexit world (and to be fair almost certainly before) its highly unlikely that anyone not involved on either side or otherwise politicised will give a stuff. In the same way that most people don't care for or even understand the incininewars in Syria, etc etc.

And how are we going to end innate Muslim anti semitism, that's what I'd like to know

Zionism, the Muslim and Leftist bogeyman. The one thing they both agree on.

How many dead bodies do you need befor you condemn Salafist/Wahhabism/Islamic?

The Syrian body count is 400,000 and rising. I guess all those dead Alawites and Shias don't count to Sunni Islamist.

Let's not mention humanitarian crisis in Yemen as Saudi continues to starve the population to death.

Now you know that's not what it stands for.
After all I am Irish also.

1. Who are they?

2. Hijack the debate? What do you mean? You mean those who believe in a just two state settlement of the issue with Israel withdrawing to their legal frontiers and obeying international law?

Are the only ones who can discuss the matter in your world those who accept the notion that Israel is above international law and has some sort of god-given right to do what they want?

Sounds very akin to the excesses of Islamism to me.

The holocaust was against "international law". Didn't stop it happening. "International law" hasn't done anything to stop the Palestinians from killing Israelis for the past 70 years.

Look up the definition of self defence.

Are you saying the concept of international law - including war crimes and the Geneva Convention, maritime law and so on - should be done away with?

It was international law that brought the Nazi leaders to trial at Nuremberg. You think that shouldn't have happened?

And I suggest you look up the definition of proportional response.

Done.

Poll: Israel/Palestinie, Who's Side You On And Why?

I voted for the Neither option since the leaderships of both Hamas and Likud are at fault. Their joint intransigence is unnecessarily prolonging this conflict and they have both shown a flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians (of both sides).

In particular, I am going to single out three complete waste of space oxygen thieves for particular criticism and they are Obama, Clinton and Kerry. The outgoing US administration has singularly failed during an eight year window to mount a really serious peace initiative in the Middle East to solve this issue.

If necessary, I'd like to see Europe try to make an effort now with Israel being offered NATO membership (for security) and EU cooperation and Palestine being offered significant inward investment for reconstruction and economic and educational development.

I seriously doubt there will ever be peace in the Middle East as the sectarian divide runs too deep. They have been killing each other since 632 because one side doesn't pray in the same direction.

Constants terrorism will mean right wing government, the world is gradually going that way.

Those who want to believe a two state solution will work have not provided any answers
on how Israel should deal with Palestinian terrorism. The separation wall is there to stop
suiside bombers and they still think it's wrong. How would they feel if a bus ride could be their last because a Palestinian on a martyr operation decides to blow themselves up.
We have seen the carnage from Islamist terrorism in Europe and it's
almost a daily occurrence in Israel.

We have had the Camp David agreement which Hamas don't recoqnise, the Oslo
Accords, the Frech peace talk and even Egypt has tried. It will require pressue from
Arab League for Hamas to stop killing peolple. The IDF doesn't wake up wanting war and Israel doesn't want to $2bn every two years.

The corruption inside the PA also needs dealth with, they recieve $500m a year from America and where does the money go?

There is multiple problems to resolve before the Palestian State is even formed.

The direct experience of Northern Ireland is that once a peace agreement is reached then terrorism incidents drop by 95+% so the situation becomes much more manageable. Furthermore, if a sane Israeli government does a peace deal in return for NATO membership then Israel will have the full backing of that military alliance in dealing with any small amount of residual terrorism.

You're diverting from the thread topic again and you think the shia's/alawhites are the main fatal casulties in Syria?!

The difference between the two is the IRA didn't want to wipe the UK off the map. They had a specific objective which was unified Ireland, they also weren't inspired by religious scripture to kill Prorestants.

Hamas have stated they want to kill every Jew in Israel, destroy the state and will not stop untill it achieved. The Hamas Charter does not recoqnise any efforts peace. They are Salafists who promote martrydom and willing to Palsetinans as weapons to
achieve their aim.

The Palestinian cause had been hijacked by religious jihadists. If there is Palestinian secularists they have to make themselves known, but of course they will only be safe in Israel.

No but it was scant consolation for the millions who died in gas chambers that the culprits were eventually brought to justice. Israelis should not have to wait to be the victims of genocide before the international community to take action. It's not like plenty of genocides have not occured in the last 50 years, these were all breaking the Geneva convention and the UN etc made disapproving noises, but they didn't stop the people being killed.

Hilarious. It was the Israelis themselves who aided the setting up of fundamenatlist Hamas to act as opposition to the secular PLO who they despised.

Islamism is a relatively recent newcomer ro the scene - the Palestinian cause predates it by decades.

It would help too of course if the Israeli state could act in a more secular manner, rather than claiming to be secular while simultaneously declaring Israel a Jewish state.

So what exactly are you saying?

You either believe in the concept of the rule of law - international or national - or you don't.

Does a murder victim's loved ones not want to see the murderer brought to justice on the grounds that it won't bring the loved one back do you think?

To be fair, this still leaves Israel in breach of international law (and Israeli law btw).

Complaining about the inefficiencies and obvious unadequacies of IL isn't of itself a justification for breaching IL.

However, there is considerable force in the argument that the cock eyed and repeated criticism of Israel over any and every other state (both individual and collective) exhibits at best severe anti Israeli bias, all in the face of actual genocides which pass unremarked upon by the same "human rights council". I've quoted the incredible figures and remarked upon its curious constitution above.

I think it's around 65 censures of Israel for (at absolute worse) heavy handed response to decades of terrorism, compared with 55 word the rest of the world combined including some genocides or attempted genocides. And none against, say, Sudan, Saudi, Russia or China, this bears repeating.

There's no dodging the issue, no explanations. The facts speak for themselves and one draws ones own conclusions as to the nature of the "politics" at play here. Truth is the so called "human rights council" exists for little other purpose than to attack Israel, at the behest of those states who openly wish its destruction.

The other indisputable point is that the current Israeli government has been driven ever to further to the right by said decades of inexcusable terrorism and refusal by the Palestinians and those who claim to represent them, to engage in any meaningful settlement discussions, thus creating the very conditions which they seek to deplore.

The Israeli government needs to change or experience a damascan conversion on the settlement issue to achieve peace, that's for sure. It may not be fair but it's necessary. Thing is, how many compromises has Israel made historically, to see them thrown back in its face?

I've no time for the Obama administrations cowardly, lazy, attack on Israel either. It's like dropping a turd on your neighbours carpet on the way out from Christmas lunch. As with the pointless turfing out of Russian diplomats, they've revealed themselves to be the lame duck irrelevancy they've become. They've also fallen into the same trap as the Palestinians, giving Trump carte blanche to support the Netanyahu view ( which he'll sieze), thus perpetuating the conflict.

1. Evidence please - and of course, it is not just the UNHCR that has condemned Israel but now the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly (on many occasions).

The latest UNHCR reports seem to be dominated by South Sudan at present (with one on Syria). Existing solely to condemn Israel? Please.

http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc.../hrcindex.aspx

2. What are these "meaningful discussions" to be based on? A settlement is either illegal or it is not - it should be quite clear.

3. Why would it not be "fair"?

4. Oh dear. First time I've heard abstaining from one vote an "attack" from an administration that has supported Israel, particularly in the shape of military aid, more than any other.

(1) Figures speak for themselves. Israel 63 (I think) rest of the world 55. Sudan nil. Russia nil. China nil. Saudi nil.

(2) Lol, typical leftist mantra. The Palestinian problem doesn't begin and end with these settlements, much as it suits your agenda to rest your asthmatic, wheezing arguments on said crutch...

(3) It's kind of difficult out to negotiate peace with a bunch of lunatic terrorists who deny your very right to exist and want to kill every last one of you. I'd say that's a pretty "unfair" starting point...

(4) Lol, you don't think a rather heavy handed message was being sent by Obama and by Kerry's' speech that Tessie disowned? You don't think this plays into Bibi and the orange ones hands? Putins response to the expulsion of diplomats made Obama look a fool.

You're so unyielding, so unremitting in your ideology GGP. You profess to want peace yet won't conceive of setting the negotiating table, making any concession, accepting any contra point, so that it can ever be achieved. Even Paisley and Adams/McGuinness came to understand this and more or less linked arms. Get with the programme!

For me is a plague on both their stiff-necked, intransigent murdering houses.