NationStates Jolt Archive

It appears hamas has taken enough seats in parliment to come to power. Israel says it will not work with a government it says is a terrorist group. It is my belief that Hamas is a legit political organization and they are elected so they should be treated as a legit. Gov. I am also not sold that they are a terrorist organization. They run several charities including one for orphans. They do engage in violent action however they are fighting an illegal occupation and most attacks are agianst military targets. Im not defending their actions agianst civilians however I would just point out that Israel does far worse than Hamas or Islamic Jihad and Hesbala(not sure on spelling) yours thoughts, rebuttle, etc.

Personally I would like to point out that the difference between a terrorist group or violent gang, and an exceptable political party seems to be timescale. Many of what we now view as accepted political institutions used to be rather unpleasent groups! Frankly I don't beleive that blowing up a bus load of innocents can be ignored because you buy a homeless kid a sandwich on your way home but I would say that the main issue here is not whether they have been bad in the past but what they will do in the future. This is not a perfect world and I'm afraid I have become a beleiver in the greater good. If ex-terrorists can make a good government and fair then let them. If they can't then they should not be in power.......that is the only question that matters

It appears hamas has taken enough seats in parliment to come to power. Israel says it will not work with a government it says is a terrorist group. It is my belief that Hamas is a legit political organization and they are elected so they should be treated as a legit. Gov. I am also not sold that they are a terrorist organization. They run several charities including one for orphans. They do engage in violent action however they are fighting an illegal occupation and most attacks are agianst military targets. Im not defending their actions agianst civilians however I would just point out that Israel does far worse than Hamas or Islamic Jihad and Hesbala(not sure on spelling) yours thoughts, rebuttle, etc.


Theres no question as to wether they are, or are not a terrorist group, they have claimed responsibilty for bombings many times.
The question is, are they attemtping to effect change by working within the system?

Personally I would like to point out that the difference between a terrorist group or violent gang, and an exceptable political party seems to be timescale. Many of what we now view as accepted political institutions used to be rather unpleasent groups! Frankly I don't beleive that blowing up a bus load of innocents can be ignored because you buy a homeless kid a sandwich on your way home but I would say that the main issue here is not whether they have been bad in the past but what they will do in the future. This is not a perfect world and I'm afraid I have become a beleiver in the greater good. If ex-terrorists can make a good government and fair then let them. If they can't then they should not be in power.......that is the only question that matters
The other side of the coin is that the Israeli government is a worse terrorist organisation than Hammas. It indiscriminatedly kills innocent civilians and destroys their homes in order to terrorise the Palestinians into submission and maintain an illegal occupation of land which isn't theirs. The fact that it's called a government, and that the State of Israel is recognized by other governments, doesn't make it any less terrorist.

Theres no question as to wether they are, or are not a terrorist group, they have claimed responsibilty for bombings many times.
The question is, are they attemtping to effect change by working within the system?

If they want to prove their legitimacy to the Palestinian people, they have to. I suspect that providing the infrastructure for the people and seeing to the day-to-day affairs of a small country will be a bit of a rude awakening for them. There's a lot more to being a free and democratic nation than setting off bombs in Israeli malls.

If Hamas is up to that challenge, they will only be because they adapt to that role. That is an adaptation that will mean a very different Hamas. Hell, the same thing happened to Fatah and Yasser Arafat.

The last thing I'd do is try to absolve Arafat of his sins, but as a statesman, he was a very different man than he was as a terrorist leader. Hamas will have to make that same transition if they intend to run a country.

I think that if a nation's people are desperate enough to legitimately elect a clear terrorist group, then things must have gotten REALLY bad.

Look at the cause, not the symptom.

The other side of the coin is that the Israeli government is a worse terrorist organisation than Hammas. It indiscriminatedly kills innocent civilians and destroys their homes in order to terrorise the Palestinians into submission and maintain an illegal occupation of land which isn't theirs. The fact that it's called a government, and that the State of Israel is recognized by other governments, doesn't make it any less terrorist.
well put

The other side of the coin is that the Israeli government is a worse terrorist organisation than Hammas. It indiscriminatedly kills innocent civilians and destroys their homes in order to terrorise the Palestinians into submission and maintain an illegal occupation of land which isn't theirs. The fact that it's called a government, and that the State of Israel is recognized by other governments, doesn't make it any less terrorist.


The other side of the coin? Well that's certainly a one-sided argument.

I know it's trendy to label Israel a terrorist state but it's not exactly accurate. The Palestinians have suffered terribly over the decades but I don't think you can place all the blame for that on Israel.

Whether it is actually 'illegal occupation' is a point of genuine contention; the present situation wouldn't even have come to pass if various Arab countries hadn't decided to try and annihilate Israel 39 years ago.

Why are they not more widely blamed for the Palestinians plight?

If they want to prove their legitimacy to the Palestinian people, they have to. I suspect that providing the infrastructure for the people and seeing to the day-to-day affairs of a small country will be a bit of a rude awakening for them. There's a lot more to being a free and democratic nation than setting off bombs in Israeli malls.

If Hamas is up to that challenge, they will only be because they adapt to that role. That is an adaptation that will mean a very different Hamas. Hell, the same thing happened to Fatah and Yasser Arafat.

The last thing I'd do is try to absolve Arafat of his sins, but as a statesman, he was a very different man than he was as a terrorist leader. Hamas will have to make that same transition if they intend to run a country.

This is saying of course, that a Palestinian state will ever be "declared", like Isreal was.
As for Hamas, the only way anything positive is going to be acheived, is by the same tactics Arafat had to resort to, as you said, diplomacy.

Nations dont negotiate with terrorists, they will negotiate with millions of people, who are properly represented as a united front.

Whether it is actually 'illegal occupation' is a point of genuine contention
Not really, It is widely accepted international(except for the US and a few others) that the occupation is illegal. Dont quote me but I believe the U.N has even passed a resolution saying it as such. At any rate Israel has not gone along with several UN resolutions and can get away with it b/c of US support.

This is saying of course, that a Palestinian state will ever be "declared", like Isreal was.
As for Hamas, the only way anything positive is going to be acheived, is by the same tactics Arafat had to resort to, as you said, diplomacy.

Nations dont negotiate with terrorists, they will negotiate with millions of people, who are properly represented as a united front.

The closer people (or a group) get to power, the less extreme they tend to get.

Not really, It is widely accepted international(except for the US and a few others) that the occupation is illegal. Dont quote me but I believe the U.N has even passed a resolution saying it as such. At any rate Israel has not gone along with several UN resolutions and can get away with it b/c of US support.

Precisely, it's not universally accepted. For example, for land to be illegally occupied the actual ownership of the land has to be defined. This isn't the case with the West Bank and consequently technically Israel is not illegally occupying anyone else's land. You can make a moral argument that they are doing so, however, and their extensive settlement building is reprehensible.

Isreal hasn't violated any resolutions which require it to act in isolation; i.e. the requirements placed upon it are also dependent upon requisite action by others. I'm not saying they haven't behaved badly but it's a common misconception to say they have routinely flouted UN resolutions without any justification.

Precisely, it's not universally accepted. For example, for land to be illegally occupied the actual ownership of the land has to be defined. This isn't the case with the West Bank and consequently technically Israel is not illegally occupying anyone else's land. You can make a moral argument that they are doing so, however, and their extensive settlement building is reprehensible.

Isreal hasn't violated any resolutions which require it to act in isolation; i.e. the requirements placed upon it are also dependent upon requisite action by others. I'm not saying they haven't behaved badly but it's a common misconception to say they have routinely flouted UN resolutions without any justification.

Seventeen resolutions my friend. 17! And with the backing of the United States- I believe that is the only reason it is not 'universal'.

Shocking.

The closer people (or a group) get to power, the less extreme they tend to get.

With the possible exception of America, strangely enough.

Seventeen resolutions my friend. 17! And with the backing of the United States- I believe that is the only reason it is not 'universal'.

Shocking.


And are you aware of the precise content and wording of all these resolutions?

Meh. The Israelis need to be pragmatic for now.

Hamas will change, it already has changed its tune quite a bit. Hezbollah has changed too, and no one thought they could.
Betlehem has been ruled by a government with Hamas a part of it, and the world hasn't ended there either.

If this election has given the PA some much needed confidence and support by the Palestinians, then this is probably a good result. I'd be a lot more worried if Netanyahu took it in Israel, because there would be no pressure at all on him to behave sensibly.

And are you aware of the precise content and wording of all these resolutions?
And I take it you were not aware that it was seventeen resolutions then?

Gee, do you your Constitution inculding all Amendments verbatim? :rolleyes:

My point was that merely because one or two countries go against a common and otherwise unified opinion, does not make it 'ok' to flout such rules.

I'm glad Hamas did well... although I'm not to settled knowing they won outright. A coalition might have been best for their first foray into politics. Would have cooled their heels I imagine. Just so long as the Israelis, US and EU don't shut the door outright- give some room for adjustment of policies.

I can only hope they are the next IRA and maybe ETA.

I can only hope they are the next IRA and maybe ETA.

You mean turn to organised crime?

Sorry.

Hamas do a lot more than murder Israelies. Considering there numerous social program things it's not really suprising that people would vote for them. They do a very good job at making it seem like they have the palistinians best interests at heart.

The other side of the coin is that the Israeli government is a worse terrorist organisation than Hammas. It indiscriminatedly kills innocent civilians and destroys their homes in order to terrorise the Palestinians into submission and maintain an illegal occupation of land which isn't theirs. The fact that it's called a government, and that the State of Israel is recognized by other governments, doesn't make it any less terrorist.

I have had it with people who call the Isralie government terrorist.

It does not indiscriminately kill civilians to terrorise the Palistianinas into submission. It is trying to route out the terrorists who hide amoung the civilians. It is not the Israelies fault that the the terrorists hide amoung civilians. If the Palistianians want this to stop, they should help the Isralies by routing out the terrorists themselves

The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not illegal. It was obtained in the 6 day war of 1967 and UN resolution 242 said that Israel must give up land in exchange for peace. Which they did. They had captured the Siani penisula and returned it to Egypt. The resolution did not specifiy that all land should be given up and it was not nitpicking. The wording was chosen very dilibrately. The 6 Day war was started by the Arab states around Israel. Syria attacked various Kibbutzim from the Golan hights, on Isralie independence day, Egypt moved troops to the Siani region, massing on the Isralie's border. On May 22 1967 Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israllie shiping, cutting off its only supply route. This was an act of war. Nasser repetadly stated things in speaches such as "Our basic objective is the destruction of Israel" and "We will not accept any coexistance with Israel"

You mean turn to organised crime?

Sorry.

Well... :)


Hamas do a lot more than murder Israelies. Considering there numerous social program things it's not really suprising that people would vote for them. They do a very good job at making it seem like they have the palistinians best interests at heart.

Agreed. They do a lot for the grass roots population that goes unnoticed. Its not exactly surprising that local people vote for those who help them on a local level.

snip
Yeah well, I'm sick of people defending policies that kill a lot of civilians and say ''whoops, collateral damage" *shrug*

That goes for other govts. apart from Israeli govt policies too.

The other side of the coin? Well that's certainly a one-sided argument.

I know it's trendy to label Israel a terrorist state but it's not exactly accurate.
This is the US Department of Defense's definition of terrorism :

"The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

This is precisely what Israel does to the Palestinians.

The Palestinians have suffered terribly over the decades but I don't think you can place all the blame for that on Israel.
Ultimately, you can - if the State of Israel hadn't been created, there wouldn't be a problem!

Whether it is actually 'illegal occupation' is a point of genuine contention; the present situation wouldn't even have come to pass if various Arab countries hadn't decided to try and annihilate Israel 39 years ago.
All sides have made mistakes, but the present situation wouldn't have come to pass if the Jews hadn't been determined to create a racist (or "religionist") state on land which already belonged to other people. The existence of a state which gives priviledge to a particular people based on their race or religion, to the detriment of the indigenous population, is an affront to human rights, decency, democracy and justice, just as apartheid in South Africa was.

Yeah well, I'm sick of people defending policies that kill a lot of civilians and say ''whoops, collateral damage" *shrug*

That goes for other govts. apart from Israeli govt policies too.

Well then perhaps the Palistianians should do more to route out the terrorists themselves and less to support them by electing them into office. I dont care what kind of charity work they do, it does not make the fact that they kill indiscriminately worse. There is a significent moral diffrence between intentionally killing civilians, and killing civilians as a result of trying to kill terrorists.

Considering that Hamas has been denounced by players all across the world board (the US, the EU, the UN), not to mention Hamas claiming responsibility for attacks, I'd classify it as terrorist.

...This was an act of war. Nasser repetadly stated things in speaches such as "Our basic objective is the destruction of Israel" and "We will not accept any coexistance with Israel"
Not really the topic (for once I would like to see a discussion of the present rather than the past), and besides, I for one do consider the occupation of Jerusalem in general, and the way Palestinian property has been carved up for this wall in particular, appalling, if not illegal.

But now to your quote: The issue of the 1967 war is not that clear-cut at all.
A while back I did a search on the events, and I found a set of interesting quotes which so far no one has indicated to not be genuine. I'm not at all saying that the Arabs weren't up for it, but I certainly wouldn't talk about poor Israel being attacked.

Have a look. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9203116&postcount=87)

All sides have made mistakes, but the present situation wouldn't have come to pass if the Jews hadn't been determined to create a racist (or "religionist") state on land which already belonged to other people. The existence of a state which gives priviledge to a particular people based on their race or religion, to the detriment of the indigenous population, is an affront to human rights, decency, democracy and justice, just as apartheid in South Africa was.

1. Israel is not racist. The state of Israel came about in the same way America came about. Members of a persecuted group fled the persecution and moved somewhere else. Over time, they built communities and towns and villiages perfectly legitamately. Palistine at that time was practically unocupied. Those who did live there were nomads, numbering less than 100,000. The numbers of those displaced in the creation of Israel was far less than the numbers displaced by the creation of the Aswan dam.

2. Israel is largely a secular nation. There are plenty of Muslim and Chirstians who live there. There is full freedom of religion there, unlike the majority of Arab states in the area. Just because it is a Jewish state, does not mean that it is raceist. Arabs are quite welcome to live there, as long as they dont try and kill anyone.

But now to your quote: The issue of the 1967 war is not that clear-cut at all.


Whether or not Israel was in danger is not the issue. The issue I was making the point of was that Egypt cut off the Tiran straights, and Syria attacked various Kibbutzim in the north from the Golan heights. That is provocation for war.

It's going to be rather difficult with HAMAS who like insane Iran want to wipe the Jewish state during peace talks.

Precisely, it's not universally accepted. For example, for land to be illegally occupied the actual ownership of the land has to be defined. This isn't the case with the West Bank and consequently technically Israel is not illegally occupying anyone else's land. You can make a moral argument that they are doing so, however, and their extensive settlement building is reprehensible.

Isreal hasn't violated any resolutions which require it to act in isolation; i.e. the requirements placed upon it are also dependent upon requisite action by others. I'm not saying they haven't behaved badly but it's a common misconception to say they have routinely flouted UN resolutions without any justification.

Actually...
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement) was adopted unanimously by the UNSC after the six day war. That does indicate that even the US sees the occupation as an illegal one?

Well then perhaps the Palistianians should do more to route out the terrorists themselves and less to support them by electing them into office. I dont care what kind of charity work they do, it does not make the fact that they kill indiscriminately worse. There is a significent moral diffrence between intentionally killing civilians, and killing civilians as a result of trying to kill terrorists.
True, but why would they when they are percieved to be their friends and Israelis their enemies? This isn't a black and white issue. Both the Israeli and Palistinian population are caught in the middle. What are Israel change that perception? I'm not particulary sure.

1. Israel is not racist.

Not really what I heard with attitudes towards Ethiopian Jews.

It does not indiscriminately kill civilians to terrorise the Palistianinas into submission. It is trying to route out the terrorists who hide amoung the civilians.

Hm. Trying to rout out the terrorists. With tanks and attack helis. Nice.

well, I'm not very well informed on this matter (so perhaps i shouldn't say anything), but it seems that the israeli/palestinian conflict plays out a lot like the Civil war currently simmerring in Sri Lanka, where the vast bulk of the inhabitants get along rather well. Aside from typical prejudices (Jeffna Tamils think they're better than everyone, etc.) the war appears to be waged by a minority of 'natives' and foriegn-born activists.

I can only assue that it's the same there. If so, the will of the public doesn't matter, so long as it appears to support the war, the war will continue.

The biggest concern with Hamas winning the election is that by voting them in, are the Palestinians appearing to support war, or is it fairly striaghtforward case of prefering a party who is determined to get back the state of Palestine. After all, Fatah was seen as content with an independant state such as they recieved.

Hm. Trying to rout out the terrorists. With tanks and attack helis. Nice.

Iraq style :D
Except Israel is really good at it.

I know it's trendy to label Israel a terrorist state but it's not exactly accurate. The Palestinians have suffered terribly over the decades but I don't think you can place all the blame for that on Israel.


I was unaware of Palestinians bulldozing themselves


Whether it is actually 'illegal occupation' is a point of genuine contention; the present situation wouldn't even have come to pass if various Arab countries hadn't decided to try and annihilate Israel 39 years ago.


The only two countries who think it is a "point of contention" are the US and Israel. As far as internationa law is concerned Israel is in violation by (a) the occupation and (b) building illegal settlements and moving in its population.

Why are they not more widely blamed for the Palestinians plight?

Because defeating the "Arabs" in no way nessecitated the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population, or the theft of their land.

It does not indiscriminately kill civilians to terrorise the Palistianinas into submission?

Yes, and it beats the men, humiliates the women, and ploughs the crops into the ground. It even destroys their zoos.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4274400.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,773052,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1222307,00.html


The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not illegal.

It is illegal as is the movement of Israels civillian population into the area. There are peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. Jordan has ceded all negotiation rights over the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem to the Palestinian people. If it was legal, or even doubtful, it wouldnt take 33 US vetoes to protect Israel from sanctions.


1. Israel is not racist. The state of Israel came about in the same way America came about. Members of a persecuted group fled the persecution and moved somewhere else. Over time, they built communities and towns and villiages perfectly legitamately. Palistine at that time was practically unocupied. Those who did live there were nomads, numbering less than 100,000. The numbers of those displaced in the creation of Israel was far less than the numbers displaced by the creation of the Aswan dam..

Israel is an apartheid state that discriminates against both Israeli Arabs and Sephradic Jews.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/august2002/0208015.html
I have previously provided US State Department information on this, available again if anybody wants the link.

750,000 were expelled in 1948, as has been explain to you before. The make up of Jordans present population, where Jordanians are a minority, bears testimony to this. In addition, previously when I responded to this false claim of yours, you ignored quotes I provided from David Ben Gurion and Moshe Dayan concerning what happened in 1948 and failed to respond. I suggest you are in denial.

I was unaware of Palestinians bulldozing themselves
750,000 were expelled in 1948, as has been explain to you before. The make up of Jordans present population, where Jordanians are a minority, bears testimony to this. In addition, previously when I responded to this false claim of yours, you ignored quotes I provided from David Ben Gurion and Moshe Dayan concerning what happened in 1948 and failed to respond. I suggest you are in denial.

Just to note in 1948, there was the Israeli war of Independence.
Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded AND LOST.

Just to note in 1948, there was the Israeli war of Independence.
Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded AND LOST.

So you accept Nodinias view that Israel is an apartheid?

Except Israel is really good at it.
Not really. So far they have achieved nothing.

The "targeted killings" never target people actually about to do something, they are usually revenge attacks on random members of whatever organisation has claimed responsibility for an attack.
The bulldozings never actually deter anyone, they just produce more angry teens with guns.
And every incursion does the same.

Palestine is probably the clearest case for why terrorism cannot be fought with guns.

So you accept Nodinias view that Israel is an apartheid?

By necessity. From the outset, the neighbours wanted to destroy the reicarnation of the Jewish state.

By necessity. From the outset, the neighbours wanted to destroy the reicarnation of the Jewish state.
Notice how that is no longer the case though.
Egypt's peaceful now, Jordan even moreso. Syria is toothless and at least says it doesn't have a problem with Israel.
Lebanon has other problems, and Hezbollah hasn't done anything for ages.

Israel needs to shake off this "we vs the world"-mentality, the sooner, the better.

And for the record, plenty of Jews were quite happy to fight for a greater Israel at any given time.

And by the way, the UN Ambassador supposed to do the negotiating was gunned down by a Jew who thought god knew better, Ben Gurion declared Israel independent, and the Arabs asked for him to tell them what he considered to be the borders of this new country. He declined, and only after that were there any official declarations of war.

I don't know why this always has to be spelled out, but there is no such thing as "the good guys". It always takes two to tango.

Whether or not Israel was in danger is not the issue. The issue I was making the point of was that Egypt cut off the Tiran straights, and Syria attacked various Kibbutzim in the north from the Golan heights. That is provocation for war.
Sure it is.
All I'm saying is that you should concede that this war happened because Israel wanted it to.

Notice how that is no longer the case though.
Egypt's peaceful now, Jordan even moreso. Syria is toothless and at least says it doesn't have a problem with Israel.
Lebanon has other problems, and Hezbollah hasn't done anything for ages.

Israel needs to shake off this "we vs the world"-mentality, the sooner, the better.

And for the record, plenty of Jews were quite happy to fight for a greater Israel at any given time.

And by the way, the UN Ambassador supposed to do the negotiating was gunned down by a Jew who thought god knew better, Ben Gurion declared Israel independent, and the Arabs asked for him to tell them what he considered to be the borders of this new country. He declined, and only after that were there any official declarations of war.

I don't know why this always has to be spelled out, but there is no such thing as "the good guys". It always takes two to tango.


I guess Israel is still paranoid about an Arab invasion because Iraq (aka Babylon) and Iran (aka Persia) were historical enemies who did invade the Holy Lands. Most Arab nations are now fine with a Jewish state except Persia.

Sure it is.
All I'm saying is that you should concede that this war happened because Israel wanted it to.

If by the wanted it to you mean they wanted to retaliate for the attacks on defenceless Kibuttzim and cutting off their only main supply route then yes.

1. Israel is not racist. The state of Israel came about in the same way America came about. Members of a persecuted group fled the persecution and moved somewhere else.
.... and took other people's land, persecuting, confining and slaughtering the indigenous inhabitants; as well as forcably importing and enslaving blacks. That, too, was racist, and not something with a civilised 21st century person ought to be holding up as an example, IMO.
Palistine at that time was practically unocupied. Those who did live there were nomads, numbering less than 100,000.
Where do you get this fiction? The population of Palestine in 1944 was 1.7 million; in 1922 it was 757,000 (90% non-Jewish). That's a population density of about 84 per sq.mile in 1922 and 188 per sq.mile in 1944, compared to 82 per sq.mile in the USA today. Is the USA "practically unoccupied"?

The population was not primarily nomadic, although, as in many other countries, it was primarily rural (but had an urban population of around 22% even in 1922). And what would it matter if they were nomads : it was still their land, to live in whatever style they wished.

2. Israel is largely a secular nation. There are plenty of Muslim and Chirstians who live there. There is full freedom of religion there, unlike the majority of Arab states in the area. Just because it is a Jewish state, does not mean that it is raceist. Arabs are quite welcome to live there, as long as they dont try and kill anyone.
To define a state in its basic laws as "Jewish" is in itself racist (assuming that Jews are a race, which they claim to be). Imagine amending the US constitution to say "the United States is a white and democratic state"!

The "Law of Return" gives Jews from across the world the special right to immigrate to Israel and become citizens, even though their only ancestral connection with the place is from 2000 years ago. The same right is not granted to Palestinians currently outside Israel even though they, or their parents or grandparents, were born there. This is racist, and a denial of the fundamental right of peoples to live in their own land. It is also absurd - no Jew from the diaspora is "returning" to Israel, any more than I, as an Englishman of Anglo-Saxon descent, could "return" to Germany (although my German ancestry is much more recent than their Palestinian ancestry).

Israel does have anti-discrimination laws for those Arabs who live in Israel proper (as opposed to the occupied territories), but institutional racism remains endemic, as even US government reports have acknowledged.

Palestine has voted away it's future.

1) Israel won't negotiate with an organization who's charter includes the destruction of Israel as it's top goal. Nor should they.

2) Many nations will stop or severely limit donations to the Palestinians. It goes against their values to fund a terrorist organization.

3) Number two will make the Palestinians suffer greatly. Hamas will deflect criticism by blaming the suffering on Israel and the West, sparking more violence in the process.

4) Israel will retaliate against Hamas violence, perhaps with all-out war. After all, if the legitimately elected government of the Palestinians declares war on Israel it has little choice but to fight back.

1) Israel won't negotiate with an organization who's charter includes the destruction of Israel as it's top goal. Nor should they.
Yes, they will, when it suits them - they negotiated with the PLO when it's charter aim was still the destruction of the State of Israel (and it was still a terrorist organization). It's as a result of those negotiations (in Oslo) that the aim was removed from the Palestine National Charter.

"We won't talk to them because they're terrorists" or "they want to destroy Israel" is posturing - a delaying tactic to ensure that no peace occurs unless it is on Israel's terms.

2) Many nations will stop or severely limit donations to the Palestinians. It goes against their values to fund a terrorist organization.
In many cases, it only goes against their values when it's not in their own interests to fund the terrorist organization. When it does suit their interests to do so, they call them "resistence fighters" or "friends in the fight against ... whoever".

3) Number two will make the Palestinians suffer greatly. Hamas will deflect criticizm by blaming the suffering on Israel and the West, sparking more violence in the process.
To a large extent, they will be right, too. It's been within Israel's power to reach an honourable settlement, and within the USA's power to persuade Israel to do so.

4) Israel will retaliate against Hamas violence, perhaps with all-out war. After all, if the legitimately elected government of the Palestinians declares war on Israel it has little choice but to fight back.
Any country has the choice not to react to relatively minor terrorist incidents with all-out war. The UK could have reacted to IRA violence by bombing Catholic areas in Northern Ireland, and even in the Republic (on the grounds that it "harboured terrorists") - it would have been the equivalent of Israel's typical response. But it didn't - it even talked secretly to the terrorist organizations - and now the guns are largely silent and the peace process has come along way (albeit tortuously). All without surrendering an inch of UK territory, despite the fact that the IRA's primary aim was to destroy the British province of Northern Ireland.

Yes, they will, when it suits them - they negotiated with the PLO when it's charter aim was still the destruction of the State of Israel (and it was still a terrorist organization). It's as a result of those negotiations (in Oslo) that the aim was removed from the Palestine National Charter.

"We won't talk to them because they're terrorists" or "they want to destroy Israel" is posturing - a delaying tactic to ensure that no peace occurs unless it is on Israel's terms.


In many cases, it only goes against their values when it's not in their own interests to fund the terrorist organization. When it does suit their interests to do so, they call them "resistence fighters" or "friends in the fight against ... whoever".


To a large extent, they will be right, too. It's been within Israel's power to reach an honourable settlement, and within the USA's power to persuade Israel to do so.


Any country has the choice not to react to relatively minor terrorist incidents with all-out war. The UK could have reacted to IRA violence by bombing Catholic areas in Northern Ireland, and even in the Republic (on the grounds that it "harboured terrorists") - it would have been the equivalent of Isreal's typical response. But it didn't - it even talked secretly to the terrorist organizations - and now the guns are largely silent and the peace process has come along way (albeit tortuously). All without surrendering an inch of UK territory, despite the fact that the IRA's primary aim was to destroy the British province of Northern Ireland.
An honorable settlement was offered in Arafat's day. It was rejected. Palestinians don't want peace, they want to destroy Israel and take the whole thing.

Don't compare it to the IRA either. The IRA never made it part of their charter to destroy England.

And I take it you were not aware that it was seventeen resolutions then?



Why exactly would you assume that? I made no indication otherwise.




Gee, do you your Constitution inculding all Amendments verbatim? :rolleyes:


Can you rephrase this in non-idiot speak?



My point was that merely because one or two countries go against a common and otherwise unified opinion, does not make it 'ok' to flout such rules.


Only UN Security Council Resolutions are binding. No such such resolution has been passed that calls for Israel to withdraw from certain territories without also making concurrent demands of other parties. The US has vetoed every attempt that has been made to do this. You may not like that, and I'm not saying I do, but it is a fact.

An honorable settlement was offered in Arafat's day. It was rejected. Palestinians don't want peace, they want to destroy Israel and take the whole thing.
If you're referring to the Camp David negotiations, the settlement on offer was not honourable from a Palestinian point of view. With regard to territory, for example, Israel was demanding more of the West Bank than had already been agreed in the Oslo Accords (and in defiance of UN resolutions), like a blackmailer constantly coming back for more.

The view that Arafat was to blame for the breakdown of the negotiations prevails in Israel (of course) and the USA (with almost equal inevitability), but not elsewhere.

The PLO aim was not to destroy the Israel the place, or evict the Israelis, but to replace the State of Israel, and with a secular, multi-faith state of Muslims, Jews and Christians. A state in which anyone born there, or with immediate ancestry there, had a right of residence and citizenship. In other words, a state which complied with the norms of modern civilized nationhood; which granted the same rights to its native-born peoples as you and I expect from our own countries.

Don't compare it to the IRA either. The IRA never made it part of their charter to destroy England.
It did aim to destroy the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political entity. But a precise comparison of the aims is a smokescreen - the fact remains that terrorist organisations can be persuaded in negotiation to drop their primary declared aim - just as happened to the PLO.

This is the US Department of Defense's definition of terrorism :

"The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

This is precisely what Israel does to the Palestinians.


Ultimately, you can - if the State of Israel hadn't been created, there wouldn't be a problem!


All sides have made mistakes, but the present situation wouldn't have come to pass if the Jews hadn't been determined to create a racist (or "religionist") state on land which already belonged to other people. The existence of a state which gives priviledge to a particular people based on their race or religion, to the detriment of the indigenous population, is an affront to human rights, decency, democracy and justice, just as apartheid in South Africa was.


I'm not pro-Israel but I do think this strays dangerously close to being a slightly dodgy anti-Israel rant. You obviously have a strong opinion about the situation but it's a bit narrow-minded to consider the creation of the State of Israel as the root of all the problems in the region; it goes back a lot further than that.

Maybe it would have been easier if Israel had never come into being; that's not the reality we have to deal with.

The wisest quote I ever heard about Palestine/Israel was...

"I don't have an opinion about it, because whatever opinion you have about it is wrong"

(can't remember who it is, some famous historian)

If you're referring to the Camp David negotiations, the settlement on offer was not honourable from a Palestinian point of view. With regard to territory, for example, Israel was demanding more of the West Bank than had already been agreed in the Oslo Accords (and in defiance of UN resolutions), like a blackmailer constantly coming back for more.

The view that Arafat was to blame for the breakdown of the negotiations prevails in Israel (of course) and the USA (with almost equal inevitability), but not elsewhere.

The PLO aim was not to destroy the Israel the place, or evict the Israelis, but to replace the State of Israel, and with a secular, multi-faith state of Muslims, Jews and Christians. A state in which anyone born there, or with immediate ancestry there, had a right of residence and citizenship. In other words, a state which complied with the norms of modern civilized nationhood; which granted the same rights to its native-born peoples as you and I expect from our own countries.


It did aim to destroy the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political entity. But a precise comparison of the aims is a smokescreen - the fact remains that terrorist organisations can be persuaded in negotiation to drop their primary declared aim - just as happened to the PLO.
Exactly. They insisted on right of return. That would have destroyed the state of Israel. Palestinians would use demographics (they breed like roaches) to stamp out the Jews. What do you think the fate of Jews would be under a Palestinian government? Rape, robbery and murder would be the order of the day. It would be like asking a handfull of Jews to live among a mob of racist skinheads.

The UN regards Palestinians born anywhere as Palestinian refugees in direct contradiction of their rules for every other refugee on earth. If the Palestinians were treated like other refugees the world would see "right of return" for what it is. A scam to destroy Israel and take all of their land and money away.

It is my belief that Hamas is a legit political organization and they are elected so they should be treated as a legit. Gov. I am also not sold that they are a terrorist organization. They run several charities including one for orphans. They do engage in violent action however they are fighting an illegal occupation and most attacks are agianst military targets. Im not defending their actions agianst civilians however I would just point out that Israel does far worse than Hamas or Islamic Jihad and Hesbala(not sure on spelling) yours thoughts, rebuttle, etc.

So, the LTTE in Sri Lanka runs several charities for the tamils in Sri Lanka. They practically run a parallel govt there, collecting taxes, running schools, runing radio stations etc. They are the only bulwark against the Sri Lankan hardliner's ambitions to completely subjugate the tamil populations.

But they are still terrorists.

It does not matter if you run social programs, if you purposely aim to attack non-combatants on the enemy side to impose your will on them.

It appears hamas has taken enough seats in parliment to come to power. Israel says it will not work with a government it says is a terrorist group. It is my belief that Hamas is a legit political organization and they are elected so they should be treated as a legit. Gov. I am also not sold that they are a terrorist organization. They run several charities including one for orphans. They do engage in violent action however they are fighting an illegal occupation and most attacks are agianst military targets. Im not defending their actions agianst civilians however I would just point out that Israel does far worse than Hamas or Islamic Jihad and Hesbala(not sure on spelling) yours thoughts, rebuttle, etc.

Israel doesn't want 'peace'... Israel wants to win. Peace would be a side-effect. If they REALLY wanted peace, they would be grabbing this oppurtunity to move forwards, rather than looking for ways to perpetuate a cycle of retribution.

You see what happens when Israel pulls out of territory they occupied? Their own people violently resist an enforced repatriation.

The other side of the coin is that the Israeli government is a worse terrorist organisation than Hammas. It indiscriminatedly kills innocent civilians and destroys their homes in order to terrorise the Palestinians into submission and maintain an illegal occupation of land which isn't theirs. The fact that it's called a government, and that the State of Israel is recognized by other governments, doesn't make it any less terrorist.

I would like to point out that Israel is logistically capable of slaughtering every Palestinian down to the last child and goat, drenching their corpses in gasoline, lining them up toes-to-head along the Syrian and Jordanian borders and lighting them up as a threat not to fuck with them but wouldn't even if they could get away with it free and clear. Conversely, the Palestinians would do the same to the Israelis in a heartbeat if given the means and opportunity to do so.

This clearly shows that Democracy is the best form of government, hands down.

*tries to control laughter*

Aside from the obvious hilarity, it's pretty lame that such an organisation could actually come to power. Just goes to show that people don't always know what's best for them, really...

Can you rephrase this in non-idiot speak?

Apologies, I left out the word 'know'.
Merely becuase I don't not know the wording if all 17 resolutions does not take away from their veracity or credibility. As my point was about whether you know the Constitution and all its Amend. verbatim, does not detract from their significance and existence.




Only UN Security Council Resolutions are binding. No such such resolution has been passed that calls for Israel to withdraw from certain territories without also making concurrent demands of other parties. The US has vetoed every attempt that has been made to do this. You may not like that, and I'm not saying I do, but it is a fact.

I believe in fact that you are wrong.

Resolution 242 was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It calls for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

Just to note in 1948, there was the Israeli war of Independence.
Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded AND LOST.

Yes, they did. Your point?

Palestine has voted away it's future. .

"Israel is the only democracy in the middle East" was a line you used at one stage, as a defence of the Israeli state. Now theres been a democratic election in Palestine, we can see the true face of the American attitude, as its been revealed all over the world. You can only democratically choose who American has previously approved. Maybe after a few years of America ignoring Hamas, then attempting to beat them into submission, then trying to buy them, and maybe succeeding, the fun folk at Islamic Jihad will come to power. And the US administration will still wonder why.........


The UN regards Palestinians born anywhere as Palestinian refugees in direct contradiction of their rules for every other refugee on earth. If the Palestinians were treated like other refugees the world would see "right of return" for what it is. A scam to destroy Israel and take all of their land and money away..

But nobody here has mentioned the "right of return". Just an end to the occupation. By the way, your characterisation of Palestinians is rather pathetic, crude, and similar to the "barbarians at the gates" tripe trotted out by the right in every decade of the 20th century.

Yes, they did. Your point?


"Israel is the only democracy in the middle East" was a line you used at one stage, as a defence of the Israeli state. Now theres been a democratic election in Palestine, we can see the true face of the American attitude, as its been revealed all over the world. You can only democratically choose who American has previously approved. Maybe after a few years of America ignoring Hamas, then attempting to beat them into submission, then trying to buy them, and maybe succeeding, the fun folk at Islamic Jihad will come to power. And the US administration will still wonder why.........



But nobody here has mentioned the "right of return". Just an end to the occupation. By the way, your characterisation of Palestinians is rather pathetic, crude, and similar to the "barbarians at the gates" tripe trotted out by the right in every decade of the 20th century.
If you're referring to the Camp David negotiations, the settlement on offer was not honourable from a Palestinian point of view. With regard to territory, for example, Israel was demanding more of the West Bank than had already been agreed in the Oslo Accords (and in defiance of UN resolutions), like a blackmailer constantly coming back for more.

The view that Arafat was to blame for the breakdown of the negotiations prevails in Israel (of course) and the USA (with almost equal inevitability), but not elsewhere.

The PLO aim was not to destroy the Israel the place, or evict the Israelis, but to replace the State of Israel, and with a secular, multi-faith state of Muslims, Jews and Christians. A state in which anyone born there, or with immediate ancestry there, had a right of residence and citizenship. In other words, a state which complied with the norms of modern civilized nationhood; which granted the same rights to its native-born peoples as you and I expect from our own countries.


Nobody mentioned right of return? What is that bold section in the quote by Candelar?

Also nowhere did I say that Hamas had no right to run for office. Just that people have to live with the consequences of their votes.

Fair enough, I missed that one.

Its fair to note that it is also true that people have to live with the consequences of their military occupation.

The PLO aim was not to destroy the Israel the place, or evict the Israelis, but to replace the State of Israel, and with a secular, multi-faith state of Muslims, Jews and Christians. A state in which anyone born there, or with immediate ancestry there, had a right of residence and citizenship. In other words, a state which complied with the norms of modern civilized nationhood; which granted the same rights to its native-born peoples as you and I expect from our own countries.

Oh god. Don't tell me that you believe that mother****ing ****.

The palestinians want to conquer Israel, and subjugate (if not murder) the Israeli people.

Oh god. Don't tell me that you believe that mother****ing ****.

The palestinians want to conquer Israel, and subjugate (if not murder) the Israeli people.

Prove it.

This clearly shows that Democracy is the best form of government, hands down.

*tries to control laughter*

Aside from the obvious hilarity, it's pretty lame that such an organisation could actually come to power. Just goes to show that people don't always know what's best for them, really...
I have to agree. Maybe everyone in the world should vote on the leader of every nation. The combined world wisdom would keep bad people from coming to power. I know it would certainly improve the leadership of the US and England.

Most, if not all, of western journalism focuses on Hamas' attacks against israel, it should be remember that they derive their democratic power from the many charitable and social organizations they run for the palestinians.

Refusing to work with them is a deliberate sabotage of the movement towards peace with palestine and is reprehensible.

Most, if not all, of western journalism focuses on Hamas' attacks against israel, it should be remember that they derive their democratic power from the many charitable and social organizations they run for the palestinians.

Refusing to work with them is a deliberate sabotage of the movement towards peace with palestine and is reprehensible.
It's not reprehensible at all. If a serial killer does charity work it doesn't save him from prosecution.

It's not reprehensible at all. If a serial killer does charity work it doesn't save him from prosecution.


Israel is free to seek reparations from hamas after the palestinians have a state.

I sympathize with people who have had mothers and father killed by hamas, but the question remains: do they want the same thing to happen to their children?

Peace has to be the number one priority, not revenge.

Israel is free to seek reparations from hamas after the palestinians have a state.

I sympathize with people who have had mothers and father killed by hamas, but the question remains: do they want the same thing to happen to their children?

Peace has to be the number one priority, not revenge.
What kind of peace can you have with an organization who's charter lists your destruction as their main goal?

What kind of peace can you have with an organization who's charter lists your destruction as their main goal?


Its yet to be seen whether hamas intends to devote its energies as head of the palestinians to destroying israel.

No one would have guessed bloody ariel would have pulled out of gaza unilaterally either.

Its yet to be seen whether hamas intends to devote its energies as head of the palestinians to destroying israel.

No one would have guessed bloody ariel would have pulled out of gaza unilaterally either.
Well until the Israelis and others see Hamas acting and speaking differently, until Hamas officially changes it's platform on Israel, they'll be treated as a terrorist organization. That's the way it goes.

The palestinians want to conquer Israel, and subjugate (if not murder) the Israeli people.

Firstly, they havent the capability. Secondly, they want Israeli occupation to end. Whats so hard about either to comprehend?


It's not reprehensible at all. If a serial killer does charity work it doesn't save him from prosecution..

But if said serial killer is a friend of the US, then he is not only saved from prosecution but positively rewarded. Note well the difference between the treatment of Syria in Lebanon versus the treatment of Israel in the occupied territories.


What kind of peace can you have with an organization who's charter lists your destruction as their main goal?..

They would have to have something to lose before peace became their priority. A geographically cohesive Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, for instance.


Well until the Israelis and others see Hamas acting and speaking differently, until Hamas officially changes it's platform on Israel, they'll be treated as a terrorist organization. That's the way it goes.?..

But they wouldnt deal with Abbas either....and if Gandhi came back from the grave they'd find a reason to ignore him too...its that kind of one sided refusal to engage that led to the foundation of these kind of groups in the first place.

It appears hamas has taken enough seats in parliment to come to power. Israel says it will not work with a government it says is a terrorist group. It is my belief that Hamas is a legit political organization and they are elected so they should be treated as a legit. Gov. I am also not sold that they are a terrorist organization. They run several charities including one for orphans. They do engage in violent action however they are fighting an illegal occupation and most attacks are agianst military targets. Im not defending their actions agianst civilians however I would just point out that Israel does far worse than Hamas or Islamic Jihad and Hesbala(not sure on spelling) yours thoughts, rebuttle, etc.

legit political groups do not have terrorist wings

that said, maybe they'll listen

...though i'm not sure the peace process has a chance in hell when Hamas's aim is the destruction of Israel.

It's not reprehensible at all. If a serial killer does charity work it doesn't save him from prosecution.
Oh, the persecution has been done plenty of times with random revenge attacks by Israeli Gunships and Jets on suspected Hamas members, and ageing clerics.

Fact is that for the Palestinians, the whole "blowing up Israelis" thing is not in the foreground as much when they think of Hamas. Hamas has stood for a close-knit community, helping others out and providing defense and security when the police couldn't or wouldn't.
It's obvious that many Palestinians see that aspect as a better way than the corrupt people from Fatah who live in mansions on the beach while (partly thanks to the Israeli shut-down of the borders) in Gaza the unemployment rate tops 65%.

For heaven's sake, don't start judging the Palestinians for voting by what your image of Hamas is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4650788.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1654510.stm

I have had it with people who call the Isralie government terrorist.*calls The Israelis Terrorists*

you had it? I don't care.. *Calls Israelites Terrorists again*

sue me :D

....they'll be treated as a terrorist organization. That's the way it goes.well.. they are a Terrorist Org... just like the Israel Army is a terrorist Org.. and the CIA.. and the NSA ..and The Mossad... etc etc..

What is your point?

Hamas are no more terrorists than the french resistance or george washington. We should never have stolen palestinian land to create israel, and israel should never have invaded the land they are now occupying. If israel can leave gaza and the west bank, and hamas can stop using violence, then i dont see that there will be a problem.

Hamas are no more terrorists than the french resistance or george washington. We should never have stolen palestinian land to create israel, and israel should never have invaded the land they are now occupying. If israel can leave gaza and the west bank, and hamas can stop using violence, then i dont see that there will be a problem.exactamente... The Founding Fathers and the French Resistance were "insurgents".. "enemy combatants"..etc ..figthing fire with fire.. terror with terror...

Hey the Palestinians were tired of the corruption of Fatah so they brought in a party that promises to clean things up and improve social welfare in the territories. From what I've read in articles Hamas even toned down the anti-Israel rhetoric during the campaign. I really can't see why people are "shocked" at the election results.

legit political groups do not have terrorist wings


Oh?

Herri Batasuna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herri_Batasuna

Sinn Féin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_Fein

Progressive Unionist Party PUP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Unionist_Party

I really can't see why people are "shocked" at the election results.well if Bush reelection did not really "Shock" me.. I cant see how any other election can.

only thing that really shocked me lately.. was the NFL video re-view at Indy :D

well if Bush reelection did not really "Shock" me.. I cant see how any other election can.

only thing that really shocked me lately.. was the NFL video re-view at Indy :D

I've said it before, Americans were brainwashed! :eek:

Hamas promised to improve things in the territories so...

legit political groups do not have terrorist wings.tell that to the War Party

Just trying to keep the post alive

Hamas is a legitimate government. They are also a terrorist group. What Israel will do now is ignore them. Ignore the Palestinians, and continue Sharon's plans to pull out of most of the West Bank (but not all of it, and certainly not East Jerusalem).

If we are lucky, the demands of leadership will force Hamas to renounce the destruction of Israel. In fact, that might be better than a Fatah victory.

The good news is that there is a de facto truce in place, so the chances of a major escalation of violence are very minor. If Hamas attacks Israel, they will be seen as the aggressors.

Oh, and Israel stopped bulldozing homes a few years ago. As everyone has been saying, it was ineffective, and made Israel look bad.

As for Israel stealing land and driving out Palestinians:
Jews BOUGHT the land fair and square from whoever owned it, usually Arab landlords.
The Palestinians fled Israel at the start of the War of Independence, since they didn't want to get caught in a war zone. They planned to return after Israel had been crushed... which didn't happen.

At this point, Israel will settle for giving the Palestinians most of the West Bank along with Gaza. If the Palestinians don't negotiate, Israel will simply pull of out the majority of the West Bank and annex the rest. Then Israel may turn its attention towards Hizbollah, and then they can finally cut the defense budget.