Bird of Prey said:
Like I said, Ian, 'easy to sit in judgment of a humiliated people. And it's natural to want to define right and wrong - the good guys and the bad guys - but it's not that easy. I suspect that had the Palestinians not made such a fuss all these years, they would have been long forgotten and langushing in abject poverty, very similiar to other parts of the world that don't pose a threat, and consequently, have neither international sympathy nor attention.
I understand what you're saying, BoP, but I am not sitting in judgment over any people, whether they be humiliated or not. I suspect that if the Palestinians had not made such a fuss, the fighting would still be going on. The Palestinians are not the only enemies Israel has. A good many Arab nations have vowed to destroy Israel....or so I'm told. I've heard it said that the only reason the Palestinians are so huge an issue, is that they are a convenient pawn for their brethren to use to try to destroy Israel.
I agree with you that the reporting should be corroborated between sources. I hold to the belief that 'In the mouths of two or three witnesses, let every word be established'. However, it should be pointed out that whether or not more than one source says the same thing, if something happens, it happens. No amount of reporting on something--or spinning the story, as the case may be--is going to change what really happened.
I suppose the only people who really know what happened, are the people involved in this conflict. You can no more sit in judgment over Israel than I would be able to claim to sit in judgment over the Palestinians.
I just think that if a treaty is proposed where a terrorist group demands a total cease-fire and then offers to partially cease their own hostilities, then the nation that accepts such a cease-fire would be most foolish indeed.
