Comments on: Sunday editorial was an example of cold-war paranoia

By: michael tannassee

michael tannassee — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:28:58 +0000

Adam ,,, negotiations of this ,, that is fueling iran’s push to have nuclear weapons which will ultimately be the equaliser in the region .. is the reason WHY israel should ,, in combination to concessions for peace ,, — their snake tongued mantra –
should also think of COMPROMISE !…..

By: Adam Frankowski

Adam Frankowski — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:48:30 +0000

Mr Tannassee has misunderstood what I was trying to say, although (having just reread my earlier post) I think that it’s largely my fault.

I didn’t mean to imply that Arafat refused each individual concession. It was the whole package of concessions which he rejected, because there were not enough of them!

Arafat was after one more concession – that every “Palestinian” born in what is now Israel (and all of their descendants) should have the right to return to their place of birth. No Israeli government will ever agree to that.

Negotiation involves both sides making concessions, not just one.

By: michael tannassee

michael tannassee — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:28:02 +0000

Adam ! as a fellow JEW ,, — tho ,, not a practising JEW — i have to say in defence of the Camp David summit ,, led by my friend ,, the indomitable Bill Clinton ,, that ,, ur 3 paragraphs does not in any way give “justice” to ur claims !

the time spent at Camp David — in my back yard — is way much more dan juss 3 paragraphs ,, to judge Arafat !…. it is hardly worth mention to believe a man like Arafat would refuse justifiable concessions ,, for which he has been fighting for ,,, most of his adult life ,, if not b4 ??????????????????

By: Adam Frankowski

Adam Frankowski — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:08:20 +0000

Hamas does not recognise Israel’s right to exist – even within its pre-1967 borders. As soon as Hamas corrects this error, it will be recognised by the USA and the European Union.

At the Camp David summit in 2000, Arafat was offered the whole of the West Bank, the whole of the Gaza Strip and the whole of East Jerusalem. He refused. Ehud Barak, the then Israeli prime minister, was soundly defeated at the next Israeli general election, and a hardline Likud government was elected instead.

All that Arafat succeeded in doing was persuading a large section of the Israeli electorate that there was no point in making concessions to the Palestinians. History will judge him harshly.

By: Paul Mcadam

Paul Mcadam — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:10:48 +0000

Please stay off the drugs,better the devil you know than the devil you don’t

By: michael tannassee

michael tannassee — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:30:25 +0000

…. Patriot 1 what would it benefit Uncle Sam to invade and take over GUYANA ?????????????????????????????? tho ,, it may be a “divine intervention” that could possibly be the answer to the continuation of a GUYANESE society relative to what’s unfolding on the ground now ,,, in our motherland !

r u a Patriot indeed ??????????????????????????????????????????

i’m tuggin at yuh elbow….

By: You Can Live Forever(-62)

You Can Live Forever(-62) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:00:40 +0000

Weeeel, Venezuela has claimed Dishikobo but has never invaded it. Uncle Sam, on the other hand, has never claimed certain places, yet he invaded and took them over.

By: michael tannassee

michael tannassee — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:17:20 +0000

Mr.Horton has cited some very relevant facts to support his theory ! especially as it relates to the legally elected Hamas ! and the modes of the “ukranian jews” who now occupy lands that is/was never theirs and will never be ,, as long as the Palestinians exist ,, hence the volatility of the middle east !