NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, this is interesting. Apparently, Nobel Laureate and former President Jimmy Carter wants to talk to Hamas, and now Israel is yelling at him for doing so. This to the guy that brokered that all-important peace deal in 1979. So, thoughts?

Carter Thinks About Hamas Talks (http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/04/14/Israel.Carter/)

Israel Snubs Carter (http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/world/2008/04/14/INTERNATIONAL-ISRAEL-CARTER-DC/)

Discuss, no poll coming (too lazy).

This was actually brought up by my professor in class today. According to him, to negotiate with Hamas would be to recognize the validity of their patently militant stance and grant them some kind of geopolitical leverage. I've got to say I disagree, though; from a purely geopolitical analysis, they already have leverage, this much is obvious. This allows either a bloody, protracted conflict or a need for talks of some kind or another.

I thinks it's about time. Regardless of your thoughts on Hamas and their activities, they were elected by the Palestinian people. It would be pointless, and probably counter-productive to hold talks betweed Israel and Palestine without including anyone with a mandate to make decisions on behalf of one of the parties coming to the table.

In any violent situation, I feel it is always a good option to try to keep as many people talking as much as possible. Without talks there can never be a solution

Discuss, no poll coming (too lazy).

No discussion coming. (too lazy).

Good on Carter. Its funny he does more things right after he was president then he did when he was president.


Oh well, screw Israel and how they feel. Im sick of their childish reactions to everything.

I thinks it's about time. Regardless of your thoughts on Hamas and their activities, they were elected by the Palestinian people. It would be pointless, and probably counter-productive to hold talks betweed Israel and Palestine without including anyone with a mandate to make decisions on behalf of one of the parties coming to the table.

In any violent situation, I feel it is always a good option to try to keep as many people talking as much as possible. Without talks there can never be a solution

That is true, and it has ever been my contention that peace in the region will only ever be found by negotiation; but one of the prerequisites for negotiation is a belief in the good faith of the other side. If you do not have that, YOUR negotiators will not truly be working in good faith either.

Israel has no good reason to believe in the good faith of Hamas at this point. I think it's pretty clear what Hamas would have to do to get that modicum of trust; they'd need to remove the clause in their charter calling for the destruction of Israel. Then, we might well see some progress.

Seems to be very little reported, but Hamas have already removed their call for the destruction of Israel.

There will be huge distrust on both sides, both sides have reasons for mistrust. Were it not so, there would be little reason for such a prolonged conflict.

The two sides of the Northern Irish peace settlement distrusted each other so much there were continual calls of doubt on the reliability of the other side to carry out their side of the bargain. Even so, with continued negotiation, repeated returns to the table a good measure of peace has been achieved. Not that there aren't still serious disagreements, but the situation is dramatically improved.

Why not at least start talking and see where that leads?

Seems to be very little reported, but Hamas have already removed their call for the destruction of Israel.


When, where? I've seen nothing of this, and it's major progress. Can you provide a link?

Sure, sorry about the delay, having internet "issues"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#The_Possibility_of_a_Ceasefire_with_Israel
This isn't the best source, I'll try to get an edit shortly with a better one, as long as I haven't given up and thrown the whole damn computer out of the window

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:i5JE-NM4zaMJ:www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml%3FitemNo%3D669006%26contrassID%3D1%26subContrassID%3D1+hamas+remove+call+for+destruction +of+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk&client=firefox-a (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:i5JE-NM4zaMJ:www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml%3FitemNo%3D669006%26contrassID%3D1%26subContrassID%3D1+hamas+remove+call+for+destruction +of+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk&client=firefox-a)

This one was written before it was dropped, but it is an interesting discussion about the recent moderation of Hamas, which is at least a positive sign:

http://www.shilpishilpi.com/wordpress/?p=17

Israel has no good reason to believe in the good faith of Hamas at this point. I think it's pretty clear what Hamas would have to do to get that modicum of trust; they'd need to remove the clause in their charter calling for the destruction of Israel. Then, we might well see some progress.


Like Palestinians have any reason to believe in the Good faith of Israel. The PLO went and made changes to their charter, for all the good it did them. However if Hamas agree to openly talk to Israel, its a de facto recognition of the Israeli state. I fail to see what Israel can lose by talking to them, other than an excuse for carrying on regardless.

Like Palestinians have any reason to believe in the Good faith of Israel. The PLO went and made changes to their charter, for all the good it did them. However if Hamas agree to openly talk to Israel, its a de facto recognition of the Israeli state. I fail to see what Israel can lose by talking to them, other than an excuse for carrying on regardless.

To be fair, Israel doesn't have much reason to believe in the "good faith" of Palestine, either. Unfortunately, if looked at in the context of the past, it seems unlikely either power's good faith is in any way effective, however it has to happen for progress to occur. That's all there is to it. You don't need some higher ethical argument, or a deep political analysis or some economic cost-benefit graph. If either side wants progress, wants their citizens' safety and security, a little trust must be given.

To be fair, Israel doesn't have much reason to believe in the "good faith" of Palestine, either. Unfortunately, if looked at in the context of the past, it seems unlikely either power's good faith is in any way effective, however it has to happen for progress to occur. That's all there is to it. You don't need some higher ethical argument, or a deep political analysis or some economic cost-benefit graph. If either side wants progress, wants their citizens' safety and security, a little trust must be given.

Indeed. Do it like in NI, I'd say. That worked, and they still don't trust each other much....

It's hard to generate trust, when Hamas is not only calling for the annihilation of the Jews, but teaching it to their children on TV every day.

There doesn't seem to be any Israeli childrens' television show, daily calling for the annihilation of every Palestinian man, woman, and child. I'd say that since Israel has the technical means to obliterate the Palestinians in a few weeks time, that they are already extending a lot of trust.

The Palestinians need to come to the peace table, hat in hand. They're too proud to admit that they've been beaten, largely by their own ineptitude and corrupt leadership.

Well, this is interesting. Apparently, Nobel Laureate and former President Jimmy Carter wants to talk to Hamas, and now Israel is yelling at him for doing so. This to the guy that brokered that all-important peace deal in 1979. So, thoughts?

Carter Thinks About Hamas Talks (http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/04/14/Israel.Carter/)

Israel Snubs Carter (http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/world/2008/04/14/INTERNATIONAL-ISRAEL-CARTER-DC/)

Discuss, no poll coming (too lazy).

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with talking to the democratically elected leadership of a country, even if we don't like it.

That whole thing is a game, anyway - once a nation gets big enough, we stop screwing with them about their leanings or policies, and start dealing with them like... well, like sovereign powers that aren't up to us to govern.

(Example: China)

Our government should back Carter in his dealings with HAMAS, if it looks like a real resolution could be forthcoming. And - if Israel wants to chuck it's dummy over it, well - maybe it's time we granted them a little independence?

Grave, the problem is that Hamas isn't going to be forthcoming at all.

They only offer the liquidation of the Jews, and the return of all Palestine to their control. Period.

Grave, the problem is that Hamas isn't going to be forthcoming at all.

They only offer the liquidation of the Jews, and the return of all Palestine to their control. Period.

If that is their entire 'offer', then it will be a fairly quick set of negotiations. Of course, there are some that might argue that YOU don't get to set policy for HAMAS at all, so they're not actually under any kind of compulsion to do as you say they will.

If that is their entire 'offer', then it will be a fairly quick set of negotiations. Of course, there are some that might argue that YOU don't get to set policy for HAMAS at all, so they're not actually under any kind of compulsion to do as you say they will.

Oh, they can wish that all they want. And I'd be willing to sit down and hear them say it, one more time.

Oh, they can wish that all they want. And I'd be willing to sit down and hear them say it, one more time.

You've really developed this nasty habit of making outrageous claims without providing any sort of source material. Someone else has claimed that Hamas is no longer calling for the extermination of Israel, and yet you go on to simply ignore that post (which does have sources), and assert that the only thing Palestine wants is to destroy Israel. This may be true, but in order for your posts to carry much weight, I will make this one simple request:



Source?

Sure, sorry about the delay, having internet "issues"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#The_Possibility_of_a_Ceasefire_with_Israel
This isn't the best source, I'll try to get an edit shortly with a better one, as long as I haven't given up and thrown the whole damn computer out of the window

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:i5JE-NM4zaMJ:www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml%3FitemNo%3D669006%26contrassID%3D1%26subContrassID%3D1+hamas+remove+call+for+destruction +of+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

This one was written before it was dropped, but it is an interesting discussion about the recent moderation of Hamas, which is at least a positive sign:

http://www.shilpishilpi.com/wordpress/?p=17

No worries on the delay; I probably couldn't have read them before today anyway.

I have to agree this is positive news. HAMAS has put forward it's peace plan, and their omission of the call for Israel's destruction from their election platform also show a willingness to bargain.

However, none of the links say that HAMAS has actually changed their charter. Merely that they did not emphasize that aspect of the organization for the election. That makes me wary (though I don't necessarily see it as a deal-breaker. Especially if the start referring to it as rhetoric, or similar).

No worries on the delay; I probably couldn't have read them before today anyway.

I have to agree this is positive news. HAMAS has put forward it's peace plan, and their omission of the call for Israel's destruction from their election platform also show a willingness to bargain.

However, none of the links say that HAMAS has actually changed their charter. Merely that they did not emphasize that aspect of the organization for the election. That makes me wary (though I don't necessarily see it as a deal-breaker. Especially if the start referring to it as rhetoric, or similar).

I agree, it's not quite a definitive drop until it's removed from the charter, but the fact that they're now calling for a united single nation is definately progress, and more ground than is being given by Israel. Even at this moment Israel continues to build their own settlements in the West Bank in direct contradiction of International law and previous treaties.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7286264.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/05/wisrael105.xml

If we were going to ask for trust before even going to the table, Hamas could counter that Israel should stop all building work before talks could commence.

The fact is, despite some popular misconceptions, Hamas has been asking for talks ever since their elections. They have offered ceasefires solely in return for Israel recognising the election results and the new government. Israel responed by kidnapping several of their minister and holding them illegally without trial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5269108.stm

Yes, there are certainly reasons to for mistrust on both sides. If the Palestinians and their elected government are willing to overcome them I can't see why Israel refuses, at the risk of continued violence with no end in site.

N.B. These particular instances only reflect recent events, not even going to get started with the past 40 years of illegal occupation and apartheid

Someone else has claimed that Hamas is no longer calling for the extermination of Israel, and yet you go on to simply ignore that post (which does have sources)
None of those sources supported the claim which was made, a claim which was simply false. Nodinia, likewise, claimed that the PLO changed its charter, which it agreed to do, but never did. The PLO's charter, however, only calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, not for the extermination of all Jews like the Hamas charter.

None of those sources supported the claim which was made, a claim which was simply false. Nodinia, likewise, claimed that the PLO changed its charter, which it agreed to do, but never did. The PLO's charter, however, only calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, not for the extermination of all Jews like the Hamas charter.


On 26 April 1996, the Palestine National Council held a meeting in camera, at whose end it was announced that the Council had voted to nullify or amend all such clauses, and called for a new text to be produced. At the time, some Israeli political figures and academics expressed suspicions and doubts this that this is what had actually taken place, and continued to claim that controversial clauses were still in force.[citation needed]

A letter from Arafat to US President Bill Clinton in 1998 listed the clauses concerned, and a meeting of the Palestine Central Committee approved that list. To remove all doubt the vote this time was held in a public meeting of PLO, PNC and PCC members which was televised worldwide and in the presence of none other than the President of the United States Bill Clinton in person, who arrived in the Gaza Strip for that specific purpose. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted this as the promised nullification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLO

If they actually managed to convince Netanyahu, its good enough for me.....

On 26 April 1996, the Palestine National Council held a meeting in camera, at whose end it was announced that the Council had voted to nullify or amend all such clauses, and called for a new text to be produced.
Yes, and then they didn't produce a new text. There still is no revised charter. It is possible to interpret the vote as abolishing the old charter, leaving no charter, which is to say, the PLO doesn't exist as an organization anymore?
If they actually managed to convince Netanyahu, its good enough for me.....
He was expecting that the PNC was then going to produce the new text of the charter, as they had just voted that they should do. When it became clear that they weren't going to, he withdrew his "acceptance", saying they were just weasel-wording. Of course, Netanyahu is a world expert on weasel-wording: he was saying that he had no obligation to get rid of the settlements, as Israel had agreed to do on its side, until the Palestinians fulfilled their obligations to the letter-- was he acting in bad faith here? Yes, I would say so (Nodinia and I may not agree on much, but we can agree on this). Was Arafat also acting in bad faith? It is hard to say; it is possible that he, also, expected to get new language drafted, but found that there was no replacement language which would carry. However, the upshot is that the PLO charter never did get changed, despite everyone saying that it "ought to be" changed.

Obviously Israeli politicians don't care about any kind of peace deal. They have no intention of doing anything other than letting the Palestinians suffer.

Obviously Israeli politicians don't care about any kind of peace deal. They have no intention of doing anything other than letting the Palestinians suffer.

Israelis would be thrilled to get peace. They are just very, very cynical and embittered. They will not believe that any approach is going to end up with "peace" unless they actually see the Palestinians renounce murder as a tactic, once and for all: promises that they will stop it for a while, or that they maybe, just might, stop it in the future don't carry any weight.

The Palestinians are even more embittered, of course. I don't think they even believe anymore that their violence is ever going to accomplish anything. They just keep doing it because they're angry and have nothing better to do.

Will it ever end? I expect it will drag on for some more years. But sheer weariness-to-the-bone is setting in on both sides (that is as optimistic as I can let myself be), so maybe the confrontation will peter out and be replaced by an ugly divorce.

Israelis would be thrilled to get peace. They are just very, very cynical and embittered. They will not believe that any approach is going to end up with "peace" unless they actually see the Palestinians renounce murder as a tactic, once and for all: promises that they will stop it for a while, or that they maybe, just might, stop it in the future don't carry any weight.

The Palestinians are even more embittered, of course. I don't think they even believe anymore that their violence is ever going to accomplish anything. They just keep doing it because they're angry and have nothing better to do.

Will it ever end? I expect it will drag on for some more years. But sheer weariness-to-the-bone is setting in on both sides (that is as optimistic as I can let myself be), so maybe the confrontation will peter out and be replaced by an ugly divorce.


So then why would they scoff at Carter trying to help? They won't even meet with Carter... scheduling conflicts my ass. If they want peace so bad they should take every single step necessary to achieve it. There is no reason whatsoever to ignore Carters attempts to help.

At least the Palestinians are willing to meet him even if they don't like what he is going to say.

So then why would they scoff at Carter trying to help?
"Help" my ass. He is helping to give "respectability" to Hamas, who intend to continue their campaigns of random murders. Nobody in Israel believes that there is any possibility of "peace" with Hamas. Peace will come when Hamas loses all its power.

"Help" my ass. He is helping to give "respectability" to Hamas, who intend to continue their campaigns of random murders. Nobody in Israel believes that there is any possibility of "peace" with Hamas. Peace will come when Hamas loses all its power.

That would be ignoring the random murder carried out by Israel. Taking of innocent civilian life is wrong whoever carries it out and whatever justification is given to it. Take a look at civilian casualties on each side, then tell me Hamas alone is responsible for the violence



Separately, this doesn't come from an unbiased source, but it has many well argued points, and is excellently sourced:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9066.shtml

That would be ignoring the random murder carried out by Israel. Taking of innocent civilian life is wrong whoever carries it out and whatever justification is given to it. Take a look at civilian casualties on each side, then tell me Hamas alone is responsible for the violence
Israel kills those who are attacking Israelis-- and kills bystanders in the process, without caring overmuch about that. Palestinians, however, exclusively aim to kill bystanders, without pretending to do otherwise. I cannot give unqualified moral approval to either side's conduct, but regard what the Palestinians do as profoundly worse. If the Palestinians stopped, Israel would have no motive to keep attacking Palestinians. However, if Israel stopped, Palestinians promise to keep attacking until the Israelis are all gone-- they have zero chance of accomplishing that, of course, which makes it quite insane for them to keep saying they will do this, and killing aimlessly in partial fulfillment.

Israelis would be thrilled to get peace.

The average non "All of the holy land is ours wingnut" Israeli, maybe. The Israeli politicians, who have an easy source of foreign fear to exploit in order to boost their positions? Never.

And remember what happened the last time an Israeli leader tried to get peace? His own people killed him. Enough Israeli's don't want peace that they're willing to murder their own just to continue to the conflict.

If the Palestinians stopped, Israel would have no motive to keep attacking Palestinians. However, if Israel stopped, Palestinians promise to keep attacking until the Israelis are all gone

The first point - Hamas have repeatedly offered ceasefire, and been turned down because Israel are still refusing to acknowledge their election.

There is always a difficulty in complete ceasefire from Palestinians as often individuals (especially around the West Bank settlements) take the law into their own hands independantly. This is difficult for the PA to deal with, as it is usually followed by such swift retaliation by Israel there is no chance for their own government to step in.

The second point - I refute the claim that Palestinians "promise to keep attacking until the Israelis are all gone" for the reasons afore stated. Current scholarship shows the founding charter as having little relevance or influence on the actual policies and thinking of Hamas.

The second point - I refute the claim that Palestinians "promise to keep attacking until the Israelis are all gone" for the reasons afore stated. Current scholarship shows the founding charter as having little relevance or influence on the actual policies and thinking of Hamas.

Is it part of their charter, yes or no? If Yes, then any discussion about "but they don't REALLY mean it!" is worthless. If they don't believe it, let them strike it from their charter, let them remove it from their documents, let them publically renounce that philosophy.

Until they do so, any claims otherwise are hollow.

The first point - Hamas have repeatedly offered ceasefire, and been turned down because Israel are still refusing to acknowledge their election.



Given who has offered to acknowledge Hamas' election, I daresay that the Israelis might not be too off base in refusing to recognize Hamas. Canada, The European Union, Japan and Australia all seem to have problems with Hamas, as do majorities in Turkey and Lebanon.

Human Rights Watch advised that the leadership of Hamas should be held accountable for war crimes.

While it is ill advised to keep them as shut out as they are, there's a reason for it to be done.

They have announced a policy of a single unifed nation, that is the mandate on which they were elected, it was their manifesto. I agree that there still needs to be a change from the charter (or the charter rewritten). This could certainly be a prime position for Israel to bring to the table - which they can only do by meeting and talking with said democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Maybe they could offer 'swapsies' for an end to collective punishment.

A complete removal from the charter of the offending articles is not automatically necessary. The above policy (unified nation) could easily fit into the original concept. I think just a change in the language would help:

Hamas finds itself at a period of time when Islam has waned away from the reality of life. For this reason, the checks and balances have been upset, concepts have become confused, and values have been transformed; evil has prevailed, oppression and obscurity have reigned; cowards have turned tigers, homelands have been usurped, people have been uprooted and are wandering all over the globe. The state of truth has disappeared and was replaced by the state of evil. Nothing has remained in its right place, for when Islam is removed from the scene, everything changes. These are the motives. As to the objectives: discarding the evil, crushing it and defeating it, so that truth may prevail, homelands revert [to their owners], calls for prayer be heard from their mosques, announcing the reinstitution of the Muslim state. Thus, people and things will revert to their true place.

The aim in itself is to return the land. It's not calling for the destruction of the people. The language is very strong, and the reinstitution of a Muslim state would obviously not be acceptable under the new unified nation policy. But I don't think there is absolutely no ground to work with.

The fact that they have chanced their policy is a significant step, and gives hope for the further progress. I like to at least see talks begin to see where and give and take can be found.

Anything is better than the current situation

Human Rights Watch advised that the leadership of Hamas should be held accountable for war crimes.

Amnesty international have called for Israel to be held accountable for war crimes.

Sorry, missed it out, so have Human Rights Watch

For that matter, I think there's a good case for trying Messrs Bush and Blair for war crimes.

israel is a whiny little runt of a country.

if they can't defend themselves against every other nation in the middle east, they should leave.

He was expecting that the PNC (..............) changed.

I'd imagine a new one was never issued, so as not to be out "Hamas'ed" by Hamas and the more extreme elements. They are in effect trying to act like they have cake and are eating it.

Israel kills those who are attacking Israelis-- and kills bystanders in the process, without caring overmuch about that. Palestinians, however, exclusively aim to kill bystanders, without pretending to do otherwise..

Rather unfortunately not only do the IDF kill "bystanders", they're far more successful at it. They do pretend to do otherwise but that doesnt really make it any less deadly for those on the receiving end.


However, if Israel stopped, Palestinians promise to keep attacking until the Israelis are all gone--..

Some of them.

israel is a whiny little runt of a country.

if they can't defend themselves against every other nation in the middle east, they should leave.

They don't need to. They're actually on reasonably good terms with Jordan and Egypt, and the actual government of Lebanon is no real threat.

Their biggest danger is Saudi, and Saudi doesn't share a border. If both sides work at it, they could probably come to an agreement on the Golan Heights, which would take Syria largely out of the equation.

Add in the fact that the wall works, having massively reduced terrorism inside Israel itself, and you come to an interesting conclusion: Israel does not NEED peace.

They are only in conflict with Hamas, Hezbollah, and to a limited extent, Fatah. Whose primary functions have so far kept the Palestinian people weak and powerless.

In continuing to attack Israel, they are giving the extreme Zionist factions within Israel exactly what they want - an excuse to continue to expand, and eventually control the entirety of Israel/Palestine.

But at the same time, however much Israel may be vilified for their "imperialist" actions, most people will still see Israel as primarily defending themselves - because they are.

Israel can live with the current situation. It is the Palestinians who have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, from actually negotiating.

Israel can live with the current situation. It is the Palestinians who have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, from actually negotiating.Only because the Palestinians have lost everything already. Namely Palestine.

Only because the Palestinians have lost everything already. Namely Palestine.

The Palestinian people are, as a people, still alive. They only lose everything once they are dead.

Only because the Palestinians have lost everything already. Namely Palestine.

Oh, hardly. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are actually good real estate for that part of the world. And East Jerusalem is still primarily Arab in make up.

Only because the Palestinians have lost everything already. Namely Palestine.

They've actually ever had a Palestine to lose?

They've actually ever had a Palestine to lose?

Yes

Amnesty international have called for Israel to be held accountable for war crimes.

Sorry, missed it out, so have Human Rights Watch

I'm not going to write the IDF and Israeli government a blank check, so trying that tack isn't going to work. I'm merely saying that Hamas is even more detestable.

For that matter, I think there's a good case for trying Messrs Bush and Blair for war crimes.

Well, if you take that and some peanut butter crackers to court, you can eat the crackers!

Yes

They were promised one by the UN in 1948, but their Arab neighbors thiefed the land before they could get a state.

They were promised one by the UN in 1948, but their Arab neighbors thiefed the land before they could get a state.

It's wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine), but I can't be bothered with putting out any more effort to cure your ignorance...

It's wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine), but I can't be bothered with putting out any more effort to cure your ignorance...

I see the rule of the Mamluks, the Ottomans, the Egyptians, the Ottomans again, the British Mandate, the Partition plan, the Arab Occupation, and then the Israeli Occupation.

Where in this cycle does the existence of an independent Palestine fit?

I see the rule of the Mamluks, the Ottomans, the Egyptians, the Ottomans again, the British Mandate, the Partition plan, the Arab Occupation, and then the Israeli Occupation.

Where in this cycle does the existence of an independent Palestine fit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine#Palestinian_Arab_leadership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine#Palestinian_Arab_leadership

So, you're trying to say that the British Mandate was actually a Palestinian state?

So, you're trying to say that the British Mandate was actually a Palestinian state?

Read the article.

And the outside links...

Amnesty international have called for Israel to be held accountable for war crimes.

Sorry, missed it out, so have Human Rights Watch

For that matter, I think there's a good case for trying Messrs Bush and Blair for war crimes.

Part of the reason no one really takes "war crimes" seriously

Where in this cycle does the existence of an independent Palestine fit?

About the same place a United states of America nips in....

The first point - Hamas have repeatedly offered ceasefire
They have offered a temporary truce, which they will use (so they promise their followers) to build up armaments for more deadly attacks on Israelis at the expiration. There is no reason in the world for Israel to grant them such a breathing space.
There is always a difficulty in complete ceasefire from Palestinians as often individuals (especially around the West Bank settlements) take the law into their own hands independantly.
If they cannot govern themselves, then what is this talk about an independent state?
The second point - I refute the claim that Palestinians "promise to keep attacking until the Israelis are all gone" for the reasons afore stated. Current scholarship shows the founding charter as having little relevance or influence on the actual policies and thinking of Hamas.
Current events show that the sentiments in their founding charter are precisely the actual policies and thinking of Hamas.
They've actually ever had a Palestine to lose?
They declared an independent state of Palestine in 1948. Though called the "Government of All Palestine", it only controlled the Gaza Strip, while claiming the West Bank, where king Abdullah of Transjordan did not see any need for a new separate state (which is never likely to be economically viable) and just annexed it changing the country's name to "Jordan", and of course, all of Israel (or "the Zionist entity"). The condition for UN recognition of that state was acceptance of the cease-fire resolution, which they adamantly refused to do, continuing to launch fruitless raids into Israel until Israel threatened Egypt to declare the cease-fire abrogated and renew the war unless the Egyptians (who had a lot of troops in Gaza) brought the Mufti to heel; the Egyptians did not actually suppress the state until 1951, when agents of the Government of All Palestine assassinated king Abdullah (for the crime of negotiating with Israel for a rectification of the borders closer to the 1947 proposal, and for a return of those refugees "willing to live in peace with their neighbors" as called for in the UN cease-fire resolution). Egypt did not, however, "annex" Gaza, meaning that the Palestinians were not granted citizenship (West Bank Palestinians were citizens of Jordan); at Camp David, Israel asked Egypt to take Gaza back along with the Sinai, but Egypt didn't want it.

If they cannot govern themselves, then what is this talk about an independent state?.

So it was said about Africans, Asians and the Irish at one stage or another...

So it was said about Africans, Asians and the Irish at one stage or another...
And in some cases, that proved true. Dreadful as the "Belgian Congo" regime was, turning that country loose, when there was nobody there in any shape to take over, has led to a steady decline from "poverty" to "dire poverty" to "below subsistence" among those people lucky enough not to have been killed.

It is often difficult to set up an independent state from a "standing start": I am not saying this is uniquely a problem with the Palestinian culture; Google "East Timor" for an example from a very different place. We talked about this once before. If we take it for granted that the so-called-authorities in a newly so-called-independent Palestine will not, in fact, be able to exercise much control, then there would be no "peace" resulting, just an escalation of the violence against the Israelis probably coupled with terrible fratricidal violence within the Palestinians (worse than the Fatah-Hamas mini-civil-war in Gaza, because the stakes would be higher). To prevent this would require policing forces, somebody from outside who is willing to take the high number of casualties required to destroy or daunt the violent-minded: who is going to volunteer? In the Congo, the UN failed miserably, for lack of enough power.

But the Congolese have been a danger only to each other. If those who were demanding independence in the 1950's were given a crystal ball to show all the disasters that would follow, I bet they would still (despite hoping that things might be handled better) want their freedom, at whatever price: and that is their right. The Palestinians, however, are a danger to others. Should a killer who has a list of more victims still in mind be set free because "every human has a right to freedom"? I would not favor an independent Chechnya either, for example: yes, yes, the Russians have been brutal there, and for a long time, but as long as there are still Chechens willing to commit acts like Beslan schoolhouse, they cannot be allowed to have a state and all the freedom of action that implies.

And in some cases, that proved true. Dreadful as the "Belgian Congo" regime was, turning that country loose, when there was nobody there in any shape to take over, has led to a steady decline from "poverty" to "dire poverty" to "below subsistence" among those people lucky enough not to have been killed..

And nothing whatsoever to do withoutside interests destabilising the region, supporting breakaways, militias etc. No. All their own doing, the savages.....And it was such a happy little spot before they got ideas above their station too, and knew their place.


I would not favor an independent Chechnya either, for example: yes, yes, the Russians have been brutal there, and for a long time, but as long as there are still Chechens willing to commit acts like Beslan schoolhouse, they cannot be allowed to have a state and all the freedom of action that implies.

...which rather ignores that Beslan was somewhere long down the line of the radicalisation of segments of the Chechen resistance and many, many years after Moscows interventions. By this methodology once could invalidate the existence of the state of Israel by its deeds in the Occupied territories/Ariel Sharon/Baruch Goldstein and so on.

Carter is pure comedy gold. Not just him doddering through speeches, but the fact that anyone takes him seriously.

Not as great entertainment as senile old Byrd addressing the senate, but I'm sure he'll get there. Byrd always makes me laugh my ass off when he trembles and spouts nonsense about stuff not even related to what they are talking about. What a pathetic fossil.

I thinks it's about time. Regardless of your thoughts on Hamas and their activities, they were elected by the Palestinian people. It would be pointless, and probably counter-productive to hold talks betweed Israel and Palestine without including anyone with a mandate to make decisions on behalf of one of the parties coming to the table.

In any violent situation, I feel it is always a good option to try to keep as many people talking as much as possible. Without talks there can never be a solution

they didnt when a majority. they are just the largest minority (44% of the vote).

Not to mention when they chased out to opposition by force they pretty much have voided any legal right to represent. it would be like if president bush kicked all the democratic party goverment officials in Canada and expect everyone to still view him as the legitimate head of state.



Anyways carter is just a pointless waste.

They have offered a temporary truce, which they will use (so they promise their followers) to build up armaments for more deadly attacks on Israelis at the expiration. There is no reason in the world for Israel to grant them such a breathing space.

Umm, a ceasefire is a temporary truce. Literally to suspend hostile activities, rather than a peace agreement. The latter would first require some degree of dialogue

If they cannot govern themselves, then what is this talk about an independent state?

Of course they cannot govern themselves, they don't have an independent state. The talk is of whether they can get one. Israel still have effective control of the West Bank, which is why they are able to build settlements, move the wall between Palestinians and their land, and tell them where they can and can't go by the extensive use of check points deep within their land

Current events show that the sentiments in their founding charter are precisely the actual policies and thinking of Hamas.

I would appreciate reference to which events in particular, with a connection to how they are founded from the charter.

I should probably also point out (not sure if I already have) that I don't actually support Hamas as a political party and certainly can't and won't justify a lot of their actions. I just feel that given the horrendous results of actions from both sides it is a very bad idea to exclude any group from the discussions.

Carter is pure comedy gold. Not just him doddering through speeches, but the fact that anyone takes him seriously.

Not as great entertainment as senile old Byrd addressing the senate, but I'm sure he'll get there. Byrd always makes me laugh my ass off when he trembles and spouts nonsense about stuff not even related to what they are talking about. What a pathetic fossil.

We felt the same way about Regan.

"Help" my ass. He is helping to give "respectability" to Hamas, who intend to continue their campaigns of random murders. Nobody in Israel believes that there is any possibility of "peace" with Hamas. Peace will come when Hamas loses all its power.

"Peace will come when Hamas loses all its power"... so, Israel will have peace once it crushes all resistance? 'Peace' is a relative term, perhaps - and a 'peace' of unresisted Israel might not be an acceptable 'peace' to the territories it would hold under it's dominion.

Genocide is 'peace', if you let it run it's course.

Better title: Carter talks;Israel balks

so, Israel will have peace once it crushes all resistance?
There is no "resistance", never has been. Nothing that the Palestinians do has the effect of "resisting" anything. To "resist" something means making it harder to do. The Palestinians kill for the sake of venting angry feelings, but do not in any way make the Israelis less capable of doing harm to Palestinians, nor do they make the Israelis less willing to harm Palestinians (quite the opposite, of course).
'Peace' is a relative term, perhaps - and a 'peace' of unresisted Israel might not be an acceptable 'peace' to the territories it would hold under it's dominion.
Israel would no longer hold the territories, if the Palestinians stopped their killings, because they require American support. America will not support an occupation that is not a defense against continuing terror attacks. However, America will never press Israel to leave as long as the attacks continue.
Genocide is 'peace', if you let it run it's course.
Yep. That is the "peace" that Hamas is after.

We felt the same way about Regan.

....but at least Carter didn't have that smell of death offof him.....


The Palestinians kill for the sake of venting angry feelings.
....and again, the disparaging of motives.


Israel would no longer hold the territories, if the Palestinians stopped their killings, because they require American support. America will not support an occupation that is not a defense against continuing terror attacks. However, America will never press Israel to leave as long as the attacks continue..

America supports Israel because its an ally. The behaviour of the Palestinians is of no import in that relationship, because this is the real world.

Secondly, a military occupation would suffice to defend against attack. The occupation as it exists is to allow colonisation.

There is no "resistance", never has been. Nothing that the Palestinians do has the effect of "resisting" anything. To "resist" something means making it harder to do. The Palestinians kill for the sake of venting angry feelings, but do not in any way make the Israelis less capable of doing harm to Palestinians, nor do they make the Israelis less willing to harm Palestinians (quite the opposite, of course).


Given that one of the primary grievances of the Palestinians is the continued construction of illegal civilian settlements in their territory, one could argue that the act of killing those very civilians could constitute a form of resistance against these illegal settlements.

I very much would rather that the sort of people who build and populate these illegal settlements and the more militant Palestinians be locked up in a room somewhere where they can have it out. The problems of that particular area will end once the war lovers on both sides kill each other off.

And since when has a resistance movement solely been about preventing the harm of one party to the other? That is a laughable concept right there and then.


Israel would no longer hold the territories, if the Palestinians stopped their killings, because they require American support.


This is a lie. I cannot say how much Israeli government support is given towards the illegal settlements with any degree of accuracy, but they are doing very little in regards of stopping them. The Gaza strip withdrawal was nothing more than camouflage to hide the fact that they were consolidating illegal settlements in other areas.


America will not support an occupation that is not a defense against continuing terror attacks.


This is yet another lie. Panama had nothing to do with terrorism, yet it was invaded and overthrown by American forces. America will support any occupation so long as it will benefit from it, be it military, economic or political. America just likes to pretend that it doesn't.


Yep. That is the "peace" that Hamas is after.

The sort of peace a goodly portion of Israel's voting bloc as well. It was Israeli bullets and grenades that killed the first Oslo Accords with the assassination of the Israeli prime minister and the Cave of Patriarchs massacre.

Do you deny that these were committed by Israelis?

This is yet another lie. Panama had nothing to do with terrorism, yet it was invaded and overthrown by American forces. America will support any occupation so long as it will benefit from it, be it military, economic or political. America just likes to pretend that it doesn't.


Small point: Panama declared war on the United States first.

There is no "resistance", never has been. Nothing that the Palestinians do has the effect of "resisting" anything. To "resist" something means making it harder to do. The Palestinians kill for the sake of venting angry feelings, but do not in any way make the Israelis less capable of doing harm to Palestinians, nor do they make the Israelis less willing to harm Palestinians (quite the opposite, of course).


Palestinians are resisting what they see as oppression, occupation, imperialism. They are doing so by acts that we call terrorism... but that we might call 'freedom fighting', 'partisanship' or 'resistance' if we were in their position.


Israel would no longer hold the territories, if the Palestinians stopped their killings, because they require American support. America will not support an occupation that is not a defense against continuing terror attacks. However, America will never press Israel to leave as long as the attacks continue.


I don't believe you. It doesn't even match our OWN foreign policy.


Yep. That is the "peace" that Hamas is after.

Actually, most of the tension is against 'Israel', not Israelis. A small distinction? Not really - once you see it, you'll see a world of difference.

Small point: Panama declared war on the United States first.

I cannot seem to find any indication of who declared war, except from one George Bush senior, who only declared that a state of war existed, but not who declared it first here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama).

Source please?

I cannot seem to find any indication of who declared war, except from one George Bush senior, who only declared that a state of war existed, but not who declared it first here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama).

Source please?

In regard to one of the reasons set forth by the United States to justify the invasion, namely the Panamanian legislature's declaration of a state of war between the United States and Panama, Noriega insists[7] that this statement referred to a state of war directed by the U.S. against Panama, in the form of what he claimed were harsh economic sanctions and constant, provocative military maneuvers that were prohibited by the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.
[7] ^ Noriega, Manuel and Eisner, Peter. America's Prisoner — The Memoirs of Manuel Noriega. Random House, 1997.

Given that one of the primary grievances of the Palestinians is the continued construction of illegal civilian settlements in their territory, one could argue that the act of killing those very civilians could constitute a form of resistance against these illegal settlements.
Most killings are directed at random Israelis, not "those very civilians"; but there are exceptions. The recent yeshiva attack in Jerusalem is an example: the yeshiva was affiliated with extremist settlers, and the boys that were attacked had a good chance to grow up to be settlers. There is at least a segment of the Palestinian populace who distinguish between attacks on the settlers and attacks on random Israelis: a poll I found cited on another board found 84% approval for the yeshiva attack, 66% approval for the rockets lobbed at Sderot to blow up housewives in their gardens or kids on the soccer field.

Sderot, mind you, is not a former Palestinian village, but rather is land that the Palestinians never farmed (as they did not know irrigation), human habitation created out of nothing almost as purely as when the Dutch pull land from the sea. A poster here said that a recent poll (I asked for a link but didn't get it; however the poster said it was by Pew Institute, a reputable organization with no axe to grind) showed a slight majority of Palestinians favored ending attacks on Israelis if the occupation ended and a Palestinian state got independence with 1967 boundaries; but that still leaves a percentage in the mid-forties who disagree, comparable to the 44% who voted Hamas. Not all Hamas voters, of course, agree with the "Hamas charter" position that all Jews must be exterminated, but since that charter is unchangeable, evidently a majority do. So the breakdown is roughly:

~85% favor killing any Israelis who are involved with the settler movement

~65% favor killing any Israelis, whether or not involved with the settler movement, as long as the occupation continues

~45% favor killing any Israelis, even if a two-state solution is implemented, until the state of Israel is destroyed

~25% favor killing any Jews, until "the day comes when the remaining Jews hide behind trees, and cry 'O trees! Protect us!', but the trees will cry out, 'Ho, Muslims! Look, there is a Jew behind me! Come and slay him!' except for the Zamzum tree, which is a Jewish tree" [don't ask me to explain that bit about "Jewish trees"]

I very much would rather that the sort of people who build and populate these illegal settlements and the more militant Palestinians be locked up in a room somewhere where they can have it out.
LOL, that already IS the situation...
And since when has a resistance movement solely been about preventing the harm of one party to the other?
Uh, that is what "resist" means. To be sure, in any resistance movement there are bound to be people crazed with anger who undertake pointless acts of violence to vent their emotions and draw attention, but those actions are not themselves "resistance". In war, shooting soldiers who are shooting at you is an "act of war"; shooting a prisoner who is disarmed and no threat to escape or do any harm to you or your buddies is a "war crime"; just because some war crimes happen in every war does not mean that there is no distinction to be drawn here.
This is yet another lie. Panama had nothing to do with terrorism, yet it was invaded and overthrown by American forces.
??? We are not "occupying" Panama.
America will support any occupation so long as it will benefit from it, be it military, economic or political. America just likes to pretend that it doesn't.
I was talking about the circumstances in which America would change its support for the ISRAELI occupation, not making any grand moral claim about America's policy in general. However, note that likewise, it is only those Americans who were or still are bamboozled by the claim that the Iraq war is "preventing terrorism" who support that occupation.
It was Israeli bullets and grenades that killed the first Oslo Accords with the assassination of the Israeli prime minister and the Cave of Patriarchs massacre.

Do you deny that these were committed by Israelis?
It was Israeli bullets who killed Baruch Goldstein and Rabin's assassin, also. But the next time that Palestinians kill someone launching rockets will be the first.

[7] ^ Noriega, Manuel and Eisner, Peter. America's Prisoner — The Memoirs of Manuel Noriega. Random House, 1997.

you left out the best part of the wiki article
The Panamanian people overwhelmingly supported the action. According to one poll, 92% of Panamanian adults supported the U.S. incursion, and 76% wished that U.S. forces had invaded in October during the coup. 74% of Americans polled approved the action.

when 92% wanted American help and 74% wished we had come earlier I call that pretty justified.

Most killings are directed at random Israelis, not "those very civilians"; but there are exceptions.

Given the notorious inaccuracy of Palestinian made rockets, it would be quite difficult to prove who those killings were directed at specifically. Reports on suicide bombs and gunfire on the other hand, will provide more accurate datum.


The recent yeshiva attack in Jerusalem is an example: the yeshiva was affiliated with extremist settlers, and the boys that were attacked had a good chance to grow up to be settlers. There is at least a segment of the Palestinian populace who distinguish between attacks on the settlers and attacks on random Israelis: a poll I found cited on another board found 84% approval for the yeshiva attack, 66% approval for the rockets lobbed at Sderot to blow up housewives in their gardens or kids on the soccer field.

Sderot, mind you, is not a former Palestinian village, but rather is land that the Palestinians never farmed (as they did not know irrigation), human habitation created out of nothing almost as purely as when the Dutch pull land from the sea. A poster here said that a recent poll (I asked for a link but didn't get it; however the poster said it was by Pew Institute, a reputable organization with no axe to grind) showed a slight majority of Palestinians favored ending attacks on Israelis if the occupation ended and a Palestinian state got independence with 1967 boundaries; but that still leaves a percentage in the mid-forties who disagree, comparable to the 44% who voted Hamas. Not all Hamas voters, of course, agree with the "Hamas charter" position that all Jews must be exterminated, but since that charter is unchangeable, evidently a majority do. So the breakdown is roughly:

~85% favor killing any Israelis who are involved with the settler movement

~65% favor killing any Israelis, whether or not involved with the settler movement, as long as the occupation continues

~45% favor killing any Israelis, even if a two-state solution is implemented, until the state of Israel is destroyed

~25% favor killing any Jews, until "the day comes when the remaining Jews hide behind trees, and cry 'O trees! Protect us!', but the trees will cry out, 'Ho, Muslims! Look, there is a Jew behind me! Come and slay him!' except for the Zamzum tree, which is a Jewish tree" [don't ask me to explain that bit about "Jewish trees"]


Assuming that your percentages are correct, since you have provided no links of which to corroborate them against, much less the housewives and kids comment, of which I am sure the poll did not ask and was your addition, I do not see any evidence, or even reasoning, towards that 25% claim of yours.

Furthermore, it is erroneous to directly link the 45% who favor continuing the attacks to the 44% who voted for Hamas. It is nothing more than speculation, and ignores that people who voted for Hamas could have been for different reasons altogether such as public support, dealing with corruption and other matters which are more important to the average person than continuing a vendetta to which they might not even subscribe to in the first place.


LOL, that already IS the situation...


No, it is not. The war lovers, both Israeli and Palestinian, have enough generally peaceful people to hide behind that needless blood is spilled. In my outlined scenario, only their blood would be spilled.


Uh, that is what "resist" means.


The American Revolution was certainly not about British aggression towards the colonies, yet it was certainly considered a resistance movement until it became a full blown war.


In war, shooting soldiers who are shooting at you is an "act of war"; shooting a prisoner who is disarmed and no threat to escape or do any harm to you or your buddies is a "war crime"; just because some war crimes happen in every war does not mean that there is no distinction to be drawn here.


Distinctions are meaningless when one fails to act on them, or only applies them when it is advantageous to the applicant would you not agree?


??? We are not "occupying" Panama.


Did or did not America overthrow the Panama government in December 1989?


I was talking about the circumstances in which America would change its support for the ISRAELI occupation, not making any grand moral claim about America's policy in general. However, note that likewise, it is only those Americans who were or still are bamboozled by the claim that the Iraq war is "preventing terrorism" who support that occupation.


And I say that given America's track record, unless Palestine comes up with the Holy Grail or some kind of fountain of youth that would make having them as friends much better, America would not give two bits what goes on there so long as Israel remains the dominant power in the region and as America's ally.


It was Israeli bullets who killed Baruch Goldstein and Rabin's assassin, also.


Hmmm, these are simply untruths. Rabin's assassin was arrested, but not executed. He is still alive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigal_Amir)

Baruch Goldstein was not killed by Israeli bullets. He was disarmed by the surviving Arab Muslims he had failed to kill, and beaten to death.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#ref_minutes)

I am somewhat ambivalent regarding Israel's classification of his death as murder, since technically, he was presumably no longer a threat when killed. On the other hand, his cold blooded massacre deserved no less than an immediate existence failure.


But the next time that Palestinians kill someone launching rockets will be the first.

The next time Israeli's kill someone (presumably another Israeli) murdering Arabs, I think it would be the first.

66% approval for the rockets lobbed at Sderot to blow up housewives in their gardens or kids on the soccer field..

*Cue picture of doll lying in wreckage and mood music

Why do you keep playing the emotive card when you've two or three cards and the other bunch have a selection of decks?


the Palestinians never farmed (as they did not know irrigation),..

Source and references please......


A poster (.....)do.)

I wonder what kind of percentages I could pull from my ass if I added up all the votes for the 'extreme' Israeli partys and Likud...I'd say I could paint the majority of Israelis as expansionist Judeao-nazis with a lust for Arab blood. That would not really be constructive, realistic, or anything other than demonisation however.

Rabins assassin was not killed, I might add, and theres a campaign to free him. He's managed to father a child while in Prison as well. Rather a contrast to Mordechai Vannunus treatment......

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/782071.html

Rabins assassin was not killed, I might add, and theres a campaign to free him. He's managed to father a child while in Prison as well. Rather a contrast to Mordechai Vannunus treatment......

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/782071.html

I bet Tmutarakhan still clings to his idea that the carrion feeders of the Israeli government are interested in peace and justice.

I have an ironic punishment for the assassin. Permanent exile to Palestinian territory. He can have all the war he wants, from the other side. And even better, educate his son on the traitor of Israel. Yigal Amir. Let Yigal Amir have the hate he craves, from his own flesh and blood.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am not a nice person.

I cannot seem to find any indication of who declared war, except from one George Bush senior, who only declared that a state of war existed, but not who declared it first here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama).

Source please?

My only source in this case is myself - I saw Noriega state the words 'Panama declares war on the United States' when it was shown on the news. I don't have enough Spanish to confirm the translation, but one of my squadmates did (I was in the Marines at the time, though my unit wasn't involved in the invasion).

I know that Noriega has since claimed he was being rhetorical, but I can't accept that. The words declaration of war, when used by the leader of one nation about another nation, can only have one meaning.

At the very least he was handing the US an open invitation to do what it did.

when 92% wanted American help and 74% wished we had come earlier I call that pretty justified.

Um, no. People wanting something doesn't always justify it. I'll give Dyakovo and Dododecapod their points, since it was corroborated. But not the idea of justification.

Um, no. People wanting something doesn't always justify it. I'll give Dododecapod his points, since it was corroborated. But not the idea of justification.

Fixed, I merely checked for coorobaration.

Given the notorious inaccuracy of Palestinian made rockets, it would be quite difficult to prove who those killings were directed at specifically.
This is missing the whole point, which is that the killings are not "directed", aiming only to kill WHOEVER IS WITHIN REACH. This is why I do not favor extending their reach.
Assuming that your percentages are correct, since you have provided no links of which to corroborate them against, much less the housewives and kids comment, of which I am sure the poll did not ask and was your addition, I do not see any evidence, or even reasoning, towards that 25% claim of yours.
Polling data is hard to come by. I can try to look on the comparative-religion board to see if links were given for the 84%/66% numbers, but I may have difficulty recalling which thread it was in. The other poll that was cited here on NSG (again, it will take some hunting to find the thread) I know did not come with a link, because I specifically asked for one as soon as the datum was posted. However, support for violence always turns out to be dismayingly high among the Palestinians, such as the poll I linked to in one of the Danish cartoon threads (if you wish I will try to dig that up again; I know I did put a link) showing 5% support for killing the cartoonists (a "minority", sure, but too large to ignore on a question like death as a response to disrespect), and if you cannot bring yourself to believe that then you are missing the heart of the problem.
Furthermore, it is erroneous to directly link the 45% who favor continuing the attacks to the 44% who voted for Hamas. It is nothing more than speculation, and ignores that people who voted for Hamas could have been for different reasons altogether
You are correct here, but I think the close match in numbers does help to confirm that "45%" is not far from the ballpark. I also doubt that anyone voting for Hamas was so naive as not to know he was voting for an escalation of the "struggle"; there were other parties besides Fatah and Hamas on the ballot, you know, run by people like Hanan Ashrawi and Naisrullah, who have always come across as reasonable, but they couldn't get more than a few percent.

No, it is not. The war lovers, both Israeli and Palestinian, have enough generally peaceful people to hide behind that needless blood is spilled. In my outlined scenario, only their blood would be spilled.
I was just making a lame attempt at humor. Indeed, it would be better if the violent from both sides could be separated the non-violent.

The American Revolution was certainly not about British aggression towards the colonies, yet it was certainly considered a resistance movement until it became a full blown war.
A "RESISTANCE MOVEMENT"???? Who "considered" it that? No such terminology existed at that time, and warping the term to retroactively cover such a thoroughly dissimilar situation drains words of any meaning.

Did or did not America overthrow the Panama government in December 1989?
That is not the question. What on Earth does that have to do with "occupation"?

And I say that given America's track record, unless Palestine comes up with the Holy Grail or some kind of fountain of youth that would make having them as friends much better...
Do I need to point out to you that Arabs have already come up with "petroleum", which would make it much better for America to do whatever it takes to make ALL Arabs our friends, if these things were solely a matter of economic self-interest?

Hmmm, these are simply untruths. Rabin's assassin was arrested, but not executed. He is still alive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigal_Amir)

Baruch Goldstein was not killed by Israeli bullets. He was disarmed by the surviving Arab Muslims he had failed to kill, and beaten to death.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#ref_minutes)
The next time Israeli's kill someone (presumably another Israeli) murdering Arabs, I think it would be the first.
Mea culpa. I don't know why I thought Amir had been executed (Israel doesn't have the death penalty), and I fell for one of the most distorted versions of the various mis-tellings of the Goldstein incident.

Your article does at least contain one bit of polling data, and since that is rare I will replicate it here: "A poll of 500 Israeli adults for the International Centre for Peace in the Middle East found that 78.8 percent of people condemned the Hebron massacre while 3.6 percent praised Goldstein". In response to Nodinia I was going to estimate the support for violence within Israel by noting that active participants in the settler movement are 5% of the population, not all of which but a strong majority at least support indiscriminate violence against Arabs. A larger group give tacit support to the settlers and are willing to turn a blind eye to their excesses: for this, votes in favor of Likud plus other right-wing parties can serve as a ballpark (subject to the same reservations you point out above about using Hamas votes, that many voters may be primarily interested in other issues), and while this fluctuates, ~45% might not be too high. Even larger, however, are those Israelis who, whether they support or don't care about or even despise the settlers, think that as a tactical matter, removing any settlements without first obtaining a permanent renunciation of terrorism by the Palestinian leadership would just worsen the violence: since Gaza that has apparently become near universal, I don't think ~85% is too high.