Ilúvatar, you seem to justify the actions of the extremists who use 'Violence' for their 'Terrorist' activities!!!
In my opinion, be it Norhtern Ireland or Kashmir or Palestine... whatever the reason, the decision to turn to violence can NEVER solve the issues... it has to be negotiated.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Aparna_Dogra: *
Ilúvatar, you seem to justify the actions of the extremists who use 'Violence' for their 'Terrorist' activities!!!
In my opinion, be it Norhtern Ireland or Kashmir or Palestine... whatever the reason, the decision to turn to violence can NEVER solve the issues... it has to be negotiated.
[/QUOTE]
I am not justifying Violance at all, at was a mistake in past, still a mistake and will be a mistake to solve disputes with voilance.... My point is when we talk about voilance then there always some room to negotiate..(we ive the violant party a chance to talk) but when we say terrorists, in current geopolitical situation, we don't give a *** about talks... OK lets talk about Israel... Hamas is responsible for attacks in Israel.. Israeli army is hunting down Hamas leaders, but when it comes to talks they go to PLO.. Mind it Hammas isn't part of PLO.. so if they really want to solve problems with talks they can, but not talking with PLO.
Like in Ireland Real IRA is responsible for the actions, and when they were brought to the table, you can see a significant change..
Re: Dual face of west!!
[QUOTE]
what you people think about it, how we define difference between "terrorism" and "Violance" ..
[/QUOTE]
Terrorism is something which is forbidden. only ppl from third-world countries do it....
on the other hand violence is something repulsive.civilized ppl r forced to do it , when they do not get their rites n bla bla bla...
Ilúvatar:
The problem with what you say in your above post, IMO, is that it ignores that Hamas (and others) doesn't want to talk with Israel. It is the foundation of their ideology that there can be no political or negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinian people if such a negotiated peace includes the existence of an Israel.
The examples of Jordan and Egypt prove conclusively that negotiated peace is possible with Israel after recognition of Israel's right to exist and after the futility of violence finally sinks in. It doesn't matter whether someone leading the charge toward peace (on either side) was once a "terrorist." All that matters is the present and the future and that parties on both sides are willing to live and let live.
The thing that makes Israel a more viable peace partner right now than the Palestinians is that the Israeli people can and do elect different philosophically inclined governments depending upon events. Sharon may not be so inclined toward a reasonable peace but he is only a temporary leader. The Palestinians have had leadership with only one philosophical bent for decades and there are no leaders to pursue alternatives. That is why it is so important to establish a Palestinian governmental structure that replaces one man rule with leaders willing and able to advocate, adopt and pursue other avenues. Some of these leaders are likely to be "former terrorists."