Why religious tolerance "under the wing of Islam"? What about followers of no religion? Why should a state have a religion? I never want to live under the "wing" of any religious group? If Hamas does not intend to be violent, why are they refusing to renounce violence? The US and the EU can give or withhold aid however much they want. They do not have to support the ideal of three religions living in peace under the wing of Islam. Who cares about religions? I just want my civil rights protected by a secular government, against religious people who seek to impose their beliefs on me. The thing about aid is that it is given to good neighbours. There is no obligation to continue aid. We can recognize that Hamas is the legitimate winner of the Palestinian elections, recognize that they are the government, and still refuse to have anything to do with them. If people elect anti-Western parties, they should not be surprised when they lose Western aid.

Very Unconvinced | 15/02/2006, 19:09 [ Reply ]

We tend to use words like "religious" and "secular" as if they have absolute meaning without regard to whom they are applied. "War" and "Peace" are another pair. For example, the US portrays itself as a "peaceful" nation but its recent history is a series of wars. The US is a "democracy" but, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court and the 2004 by the influence of the Diebold Corporation in Ohio.
"Terrorist" and "Freedom Fighter" are another pair on which the US and others have done flip-flops. It is well-known that the US supported Al Qaeda from the time of Carter under "Operation Cyclone" when its purpose was served by Al Qaeda fighting a proxy-war against the Soviets. When that was no longer necessary, it became a "terrorist" organization. The Taliban also experienced the same flip-flop by the US.

Keep in mind also, that Irgun, Lehi and the Stern Gang were all considered "terrorist" groups by the British government and they were the precursors of the Israeli government. So if we can get past the meaningless rhetoric, by continuing funding to the Palestinian government, perhaps we could make some real progress towards peace in the region.

I agree that organizations should renounce violence. How in the world can we have peace - meaning the cessation of violence and war - if the world's most powerful nation continues to use violence and war in a futile attempt to establish peace and democracy? Iraq is the current example of the absurdity of this process. The US sending $3 Billion a year military aid is another,on-going example.

If a government is "secular" then it does not support organized religion. Why should Palestinians be forced to live under a religious government? Is that not precisely what the they are faced with trying to co-exist with the pro-Jewish Israeli government? And if you say it is secular, then how can it be that someone outside of Israel can undergo a conversion to Judaism and claim a right to live in Israel, but a Palestinian refugee whose family lived there for generations can claim no such right?

Yuram | 22/04/2006, 15:55 [ Reply ]

how can you honestly say that hamas are a peaceful orginization? they have made it clear that a two state solution is not their ultimate goal but rather the complete destruction of israel. this article notes the deaths caused by israeli troops making sure to point out the accidental deaths caused to children by the israelis, what about the israeli children and other completley innocent civillians that have been killed purposely by hamas attacks on civillian targets. do you really think America and europe will or should fund this?

Darryl | 20/04/2006, 12:54 [ Reply ]

Hi, I like Your site, nice job. You can see my blog sites. I'm just starting with online live then forgive me low quality of my blogs (Yet).

Best regards
Mike

Dress up game Dress up game

game winner | 22/04/2006, 11:27 [ Reply ]