Shame they didn't (and still don't) have a peaceful (or intelligent) plan in place from the beginning that could actually work in their grand design.
The settlement areas were chosen quite specifically for their advantages as military positions/ highlands, most fertile areas, water access, etc...
They have a rather poor concept of land appropriation and conceptions of boundaries for their new state wouldn't you say?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Shame they didn't (and still don't) have a peaceful (or intelligent) plan in place from the beginning that could actually work in their grand design.
The settlement areas were chosen quite specifically for their advantages as military positions/ highlands, most fertile areas, water access, etc...
They have a rather poor concept of land appropriation and conceptions of boundaries for their new state wouldn't you say?
yea, I agree. you hear that? I agree. but resorting to violence is not the only answer. that is hamas's MO and that is not going to accomplish anything.
every muslim country in the area has been hostile to Israel.
You sound just like the terrorists. Brilliant buddy, brilliant.
You havent said anything resembling brilliant this entire thread. Go away before you get embarrassed by my superior insight again.
I noticed no one bothered to reply to my logically sound argument and history lesson earlier, so I'm just gonna infer that you agree and close out my presence on this topic with a "Thats what I fucking thought" and hope that you better educate yourselves in the future. HAHAAHA eh I'm bored.
yea, I agree. you hear that? I agree. but resorting to violence is not the only answer. that is hamas's MO and that is not going to accomplish anything.
every muslim country in the area has been hostile to Israel.
So you agree with Rolands last post yet claim that violence is hama's MO but not Israels? Interesting. As to the talks you are waiting so patiently on, there is quite a big difference between blind optimism and realistic integrity. What makes you think these talks will produce anything different than the past? I too am for peace and reducing the violence asap, but it seems that as long as the US forever has the backs of Israel, why should they (Israel) change, or even consider any sort of reasonable resolution between them and Palestine?
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
yea, I agree. you hear that? I agree. but resorting to violence is not the only answer. that is hamas's MO and that is not going to accomplish anything.
every muslim country in the area has been hostile to Israel.
That's about right. It's pretty much a knee jerk reaction considering it's Britain, the US and Israel, not just Israel they are looking at.
Everyone wants access the the most holiest parts to call as their own.
I'm not sure what they expected the reaction would be when they started building and staking claims by slicing into the heart of the area and displacing people from their homes.
Talk about literally drawing lines in the sand for people to cross.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
So you agree with Rolands last post yet claim that violence is hama's MO but not Israels? Interesting.
why is that interesting? Israel made offers in the past only to be answered with suicide bombers and charters calling for their destruction. not to mention 6 wars brought upon them in the past 60 years.
What makes you think these talks will produce anything different than the past?
maybe then will maybe they wont, but I'd like to see them happen nonetheless. again, look at the alternative. armed resistance. that will not accomplish anything expect more innocent people dying.
I too am for peace and reducing the violence asap, but it seems that as long as the US forever has the backs of Israel, why should they (Israel) change, or even consider any sort of reasonable resolution between them and Palestine?
you are for peace but ok with hamas wanting to destroy Israel. is that right? you cant have it both ways
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas' top leaders in Gaza and Syria warned the moderate Palestinian president Friday not to "fall into the trap" of an upcoming U.S.-sponsored peace conference with Israel.
Hamas is clearly part of the problem. But surely concerns of a trap have a legitimate basis. US tax dollars have a chosen side.
Its difficult for me to see how one could take sides in this conflict. Both sides use violence and both sides have walked out of promising negotiations.
Hamas is clearly part of the problem. But surely concerns of a trap have a legitimate basis. US tax dollars have a chosen side.
Its difficult for me to see how one could take sides in this conflict. Both sides use violence and both sides have walked out of promising negotiations.
I absolutely agree both sides are the problem. but in this specific example, Hamas is the only party not willing to talk. and the main goal continues to be to destroy Israel.
ok, there are dead citizens because hezbolla decided to go over the border and kidnap Israeli soliders.
I wish my world was as simple as yours. Life would be so cut and dry. For instance, it would be possible for me to ignore such facts as mentioned in the following cut and paste frenzy...
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10663
'The latest phase began on June 24, when the Israeli army kidnapped two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from their home in Gaza. They were "detained" according to brief notes in the British press. The U.S. media mostly preferred silence.4 They will presumably join the 9,000 other Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, 1,000 reportedly in prison without charges, hence kidnapped -- as were many of the rest, in that they were sentenced by Israeli courts, which are a disgrace, harshly condemned by legal commentators in Israel. Among them are hundreds of women and children, their numbers and fate of little interest. Also of little interest are Israel's secret prisons. The Israeli press reported that these have been "the entry gate to Israel for Lebanese, especially those who were suspected of membership in Hezbollah, who were transferred to the southern side of the border," some captured in battle in Lebanon, others "abducted at Israel's initiative" and sometimes held as hostages, with torture under interrogation. The secret Camp 1391, possibly one of several, was discovered accidentally in 2003, since forgotten.
The next day, June 25, Palestinians kidnapped an Israeli soldier just across the border from Gaza. That did happen, very definitely. Every literate reader also knows the name of corporal Gilad Shalit, and wants him released. The nameless kidnapped Gaza civilians are ignored; international law, while rightly insisting that captured soldiers be treated humanely, absolutely prohibits the extrajudicial seizure of civilians. Israel responded by "bombing and shelling, darkening and destroying, imposing a siege and kidnapping like the worst of terrorists and nobody breaks the silence to ask, what the hell for, and according to what right?" as the fine Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote, adding that "[a] state that takes such steps is no longer distinguishable from a terror organization." Israel also kidnapped a large part of the Palestinian government, destroyed most of the Gaza electrical and water systems, and committed numerous other crimes. These acts of collective punishment, condemned by Amnesty Intrnational as "war crimes," compounded the punishment of Palestinians for having voted the wrong way...
...On the motives, analysts differ. "Hezbollah's official line," the Financial Times reports, "was that the capture was aimed at winning the release of the few remaining Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. But the timing and scale of its attack suggest it was partly intended to reduce the pressure on the Palestinians by forcing Israel to fight on two fronts simultaneously." Many agree, recalling Hezbollah's reaction to the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000 -- when it seized soldiers in a cross-border raid that led to a prisoner exchange -- as well as its response to Israel's devastating attacks in the West Bank in 2002 (Amos Harel).10 Others highlight the prisoner motive, which is also suggested by the exchange in 2000, by the fact that Hezbollah had attempted capture of soldiers before the recent crisis, and by the matter of Israel's secret prisons, mentioned earlier. Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a Lebanese academic specialist on Hezbollah, regards the Gaza connection as primary, but argues that one should not ignore "the domestic significance of these hostages."
Instead of either taking their portion of the land or negotiating the Palestinians and a bunch of their allies decided to go to war to try and take it all and got their asses kicked. To me after that all deals are off since they clearly chose war over peace.
Where exactly did you learn that '...the Palestinians and a bunch of their allies decided to go to war...'?
Quite frankly, this is bullshit. If you're talking about the 1948 war then you've got it the wrong way around.
'Following is a list drawn from the New York Times of the major military operations the Zionists mounted before the British evacuated Palestine and before the Arab forces entered Palestine:
* Qazaza (21 Dec. 1947)
* Sa'sa (16 Feb. 1948)
* Haifa (21 Feb. 1948)
* Salameh (1 March 1948)
* Biyar Adas (6 March 1948)
* Qana (13 March 1948)
* Qastal (4 April 1948)
* Deir Yassin (9 April 1948)
* Lajjun (15 April 1948)
* Saris (17 April 1948)
* Tiberias (20 April 1948)
* Haifa (22 April 1948)
* Jerusalem (25 April 1948)
* Jaffa (26 April 1948)
* Acre (27 April 1948)
* Jerusalem (1 May 1948)
* Safad (7 May 1948)
* Beisan (9 May 1948).
David Ben-Gurion confirms this in an address delivered to American Zionists in Jerusalem on 3 September 1950:
"Until the British left, no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the Arabs, while the Haganah, under severe and frequent attack, captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberias and Haifa, Jaffa and Safad" (Ben-Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 530)'
http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-after-s13.html
'Ben-Gurion wrote that "a Jewish state...will serve as an important and decisive stage in the realization of Zionism," but only a stage: the borders of the state "will not be fixed for eternity," but will expand either by agreement with the Arabs "or by some other way," once "we have force at our disposal" in a Jewish State. His long-term vision included Jordan and beyond, sometimes even "the Land of Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates. During the 1948 war, he held that "To the Arabs of the Land of Israel only one function remains -- to run away." The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance." Weizmann had in turn informed Lord Balfour after World War I that "the issue known as the Arab problem in Palestine will be of merely local character and, in effect, anyone cognizant of the situation does not consider it a highly significant factor." Hence displacement of the inhabitants by Jewish settlement raises no moral issue. The current President, Haim Herzog, expressed the basic guidelines in 1972: "I do not deny the Palestinians any place or stand or opinion on every matter. But certainly I am not prepared to consider them as partners in any respect in a land that has been consecrated in the hands of our nation for thousands of years. For the Jews of this land there cannot be any partner."
why is that interesting? Israel made offers in the past only to be answered with suicide bombers and charters calling for their destruction. not to mention 6 wars brought upon them in the past 60 years.
Please provide evidence of these magnanimous offers of which you speak.
And while were at it, please explain how Israel is the victim here, as you so clearly believe it to be.
And does '..their own land..' include the illegal settlements?
Israel blatantly dragging people out of their homes so others can live in them or so they can be bulldozed for new settlements is pretty insane.
Palestinians would actually be endangering their lives just trying to return to their old neighborhood to look at their homes and land that other people are now living on, let alone actually knocking on the door (which many built with their bare hands) and trying to ask for anything back...legal title and deed in hand.
incomprehensible...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I noticed no one bothered to reply to my logically sound argument and history lesson earlier.
What, this?
Anyone who opposes the will of the great and holy Yahweh!!!
Or this?
Fighting the Israelis is not going to get palestinians their land in Israel back or ressurecting the original 2 state plan. Only peace talks will ever result in compromise and a possible 2 state solution. Hamas does not have a leg to stand on (mostly due to violence it and the greater arab world instigated) and has not shown much interest at all in peace with Israel.
Or this?
Frankly, I think Israel has been downright saintly in the way they have returned land to nations that have attacked them repeatedly and obsessively in its short history. If I were an Israeli I'd be pretty wary about giving anything back, honestly, regardless of what the UN says, whether its the right thing to do or not.
For the first, I don't what to say. But I'll try and rembemer that lesson.
For the second, please try to remember that Hamas have been democratically elected by the Palestinian people. There have been peace talks in the past which led to nothing for the people except what was percieved as more injustice, so they elected the Hamas. You would think that not only could this have been forseen by the US and Israel but could also have been prevented by not letting Palestine fall into despair. And after destroying a country in the name of democracy, the least the western world could do is respect the elected leaders.
For the third one, I don't understand the point of ignoring international laws on a subject and using them on another subject to get your ways. The UN has only utility if it is respected by its members.
I wish my world was as simple as yours. Life would be so cut and dry. For instance, it would be possible for me to ignore such facts as mentioned in the following cut and paste frenzy...
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10663
'The latest phase began on June 24, when the Israeli army kidnapped two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from their home in Gaza. They were "detained" according to brief notes in the British press. The U.S. media mostly preferred silence.4 They will presumably join the 9,000 other Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, 1,000 reportedly in prison without charges, hence kidnapped -- as were many of the rest, in that they were sentenced by Israeli courts, which are a disgrace, harshly condemned by legal commentators in Israel. Among them are hundreds of women and children, their numbers and fate of little interest. Also of little interest are Israel's secret prisons. The Israeli press reported that these have been "the entry gate to Israel for Lebanese, especially those who were suspected of membership in Hezbollah, who were transferred to the southern side of the border," some captured in battle in Lebanon, others "abducted at Israel's initiative" and sometimes held as hostages, with torture under interrogation. The secret Camp 1391, possibly one of several, was discovered accidentally in 2003, since forgotten.
The next day, June 25, Palestinians kidnapped an Israeli soldier just across the border from Gaza. That did happen, very definitely. Every literate reader also knows the name of corporal Gilad Shalit, and wants him released. The nameless kidnapped Gaza civilians are ignored; international law, while rightly insisting that captured soldiers be treated humanely, absolutely prohibits the extrajudicial seizure of civilians. Israel responded by "bombing and shelling, darkening and destroying, imposing a siege and kidnapping like the worst of terrorists and nobody breaks the silence to ask, what the hell for, and according to what right?" as the fine Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote, adding that "[a] state that takes such steps is no longer distinguishable from a terror organization." Israel also kidnapped a large part of the Palestinian government, destroyed most of the Gaza electrical and water systems, and committed numerous other crimes. These acts of collective punishment, condemned by Amnesty Intrnational as "war crimes," compounded the punishment of Palestinians for having voted the wrong way...
...On the motives, analysts differ. "Hezbollah's official line," the Financial Times reports, "was that the capture was aimed at winning the release of the few remaining Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. But the timing and scale of its attack suggest it was partly intended to reduce the pressure on the Palestinians by forcing Israel to fight on two fronts simultaneously." Many agree, recalling Hezbollah's reaction to the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000 -- when it seized soldiers in a cross-border raid that led to a prisoner exchange -- as well as its response to Israel's devastating attacks in the West Bank in 2002 (Amos Harel).10 Others highlight the prisoner motive, which is also suggested by the exchange in 2000, by the fact that Hezbollah had attempted capture of soldiers before the recent crisis, and by the matter of Israel's secret prisons, mentioned earlier. Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a Lebanese academic specialist on Hezbollah, regards the Gaza connection as primary, but argues that one should not ignore "the domestic significance of these hostages."
hey noam, we are getting off track here. I'm not going to defend Israel for having a secret prison. thats wrong and its one of many horrible things the Israelis have done during this conflict.
this thread is about how hamas is preventing peace. Israel wants to talk. so talk. like I keep saying, its either they talk or fight a battle (by killing civilians) that cant be won.
And Israel doesn't want to destroy what's left of Palestine? What exactly have they been doing all these years? Playing hop-scotch?
Hamas is the democratically elected government. They are also a legitimate resistance movement against Israeli aggression and the illegal occupation.
a legitimate resistance movement ??? o thats nice. are you blind? how has this legitimate resistance movement helped the Palestinian people? please tell me.
hey noam, we are getting off track here. I'm not going to defend Israel for having a secret prison. thats wrong and its one of many horrible things the Israelis have done during this conflict.
this thread is about how hamas is preventing peace. Israel wants to talk. so talk. like I keep saying, its either they talk or fight a battle (by killing civilians) that cant be won.
by all means, carry on with violence.
lol, hey bill, quit trying to simplify the "problem" into something that you just wanna make it. This is much bigger than just "hamas preventing peace" as you see it.
Also, no one ever responded to a question of mine: Hamas were not even invited to the meeting. How is Israel proving that they want to "talk and solve this" if they aren't even inviting them to the meeting?
lol, hey bill, quit trying to simplify the "problem" into something that you just wanna make it. This is much bigger than just "hamas preventing peace" as you see it.
who is bill? tell me then Dr. how is the problem much bigger? fatah and Israel are ready to talk. maybe something will get accomplished, maybe it wont, but its worth a try.
lAlso, no one ever responded to a question of mine: Hamas were not even invited to the meeting. How is Israel proving that they want to "talk and solve this" if they aren't even inviting them to the meeting?
this isnt a matter of being invited. both sides are saying they want to talk (Israel and abbas). hamas denounced it without ever even considering it. if they wanted to go, they could.
the only solution for hamas (and guys like byzine) is violence.
who is bill? tell me then Dr. how is the problem much bigger? fatah and Israel are ready to talk. maybe something will get accomplished, maybe it wont, but its worth a try.
o' reilly. fatah and israel are ready to talk WITHOUT hamas, who are the democratically-elected govt of palestine, and therefore represent the palestinians' wants BETTER than fatah ever would dream of. in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7043174.stm it mentions that hamas was not invited. This problem is much bigger in that hamas can see it for what it really is. israel is not really trying to solve anything. if they were, they wouldve talked to the elected government of palestine, not some puppet government.
This isn't just hamas not wanting peace. this is a problem that's been going on for over 60 years and every topic about it is related in some way. for example, the war with hezbollah last year is still related to this topic.
this isnt a matter of being invited. both sides are saying they want to talk (Israel and abbas). hamas denounced it without ever even considering it. if they wanted to go, they could.
not really. pretty sure you gotta be invited to this thing. i doubt they'd let a hamas rep just walk in.
the only solution for hamas (and guys like byzine) is violence.
that's just a stupid argument, and i wont bother responding to it.
Abbas and the Palestinian authority are a puppet government propped up by Israel and the west. Any so called 'peace talks' between them, Israel and the U.S are redundant from the outset. It's that simple.
Oh yes and you would know this because of your extensive background in Israeli/Palestian studies. You blow as much smoke out of your ass as the poeple you constantly criticize.
Nothing the US and Israel do will ever appease you. They can Israel could retreat back to it's existing borders, give all the land back to the Palestinians, and pay each Palestinian reperations for any damaged it caused and you would still find a way to fault Israel for something and eventually lay blame on the door step of the US. While most of us live in what I like to refer to as reality. We can acknowledge that both sides of this clusterfuck have a share of the blame and that any step toward peace is step in the right direction you would much rather continue to blame one side and, from my observation, let the violence continue because it's OK for Israelis to die.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
o' reilly. fatah and israel are ready to talk WITHOUT hamas, who are the democratically-elected govt of palestine, and therefore represent the palestinians' wants BETTER than fatah ever would dream of.
wow, thats a bold statement. did hamas win 100% of the vote? would you say much of the west bank supports fatah or hamas?
This problem is much bigger in that hamas can see it for what it really is. israel is not really trying to solve anything. if they were, they wouldve talked to the elected government of palestine, not some puppet government.
how can they talk to the elected government when that government is ONLY interested in its destruction?
its a shitty situation to say the least. Israel says it wont talk to hamas until it recognizes Israel and renounces violence. Hamas wont talk to Israel until they go back to 1967 borders.
neither will happen. but what will happen is talks IF hamas will renounce violence. personally, I think thats a great first step.
not really. pretty sure you gotta be invited to this thing. i doubt they'd let a hamas rep just walk in.
I really dont know. you may be right. but I think the US and abbas would pressure Israel to allow it if hamas wanted to be part of the talks. they clearly do not.
wow, thats a bold statement. did hamas win 100% of the vote? would you say much of the west bank supports fatah or hamas?
yeah, but the point is they won the vote by a majority, meaning the majority of Palestinians support them. lots of us may not support the republicans, but at the end of the day, they won the election and represent the US.
how can they talk to the elected government when that government is ONLY interested in its destruction?
how can hamas talk to a government that has terrorized its people, jailed thousands unjustly, took them out of their homes, etc (im sure you know what they have done?
its a shitty situation to say the least. Israel says it wont talk to hamas until it recognizes Israel and renounces violence. Hamas wont talk to Israel until they go back to 1967 borders.
neither will happen. but what will happen is talks IF hamas will renounce violence. personally, I think thats a great first step.
why should hamas be the ones to renounce violence? Why can't Israel be the ones to go back to their borders? why should hamas be the ones trying to negotiate, not israel?
I really dont know. you may be right. but I think the US and abbas would pressure Israel to allow it if hamas wanted to be part of the talks. they clearly do not.
I doubt both the US and abbas would not want hamas there. the US, the same people who placed sanctions on hamas, consider them a terrorist group, etc.
how? what other option has hamas shown?
well, there IS the option that you just stated above:
well, there IS the option that you just stated above:
again, what option will hamas use besides violence?
the borders changed after a war that was brought onto Israel in 1967. going back to those exact borders will not happen. Israel is not going to give up Jerusalem. the best that will happen is a shared capital
Most Jews with the nuts to live in that region believe they are God's chosen ones in the region. Many quite readily see the Palestinians as dogs rather than humans.
It's all going to blather on for a few more thousand years, or until the red button gets pushed.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Oh yes and you would know this because of your extensive background in Israeli/Palestian studies. You blow as much smoke out of your ass as the poeple you constantly criticize.
Nothing the US and Israel do will ever appease you. They can Israel could retreat back to it's existing borders, give all the land back to the Palestinians, and pay each Palestinian reperations for any damaged it caused and you would still find a way to fault Israel for something and eventually lay blame on the door step of the US. While most of us live in what I like to refer to as reality. We can acknowledge that both sides of this clusterfuck have a share of the blame and that any step toward peace is step in the right direction you would much rather continue to blame one side and, from my observation, let the violence continue because it's OK for Israelis to die.
Comments
Israel has a right to exist too.
Of course they do.
Shame they didn't (and still don't) have a peaceful (or intelligent) plan in place from the beginning that could actually work in their grand design.
The settlement areas were chosen quite specifically for their advantages as military positions/ highlands, most fertile areas, water access, etc...
They have a rather poor concept of land appropriation and conceptions of boundaries for their new state wouldn't you say?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
they also have a right to defend their own land...so they claim...which they are going to have to do alone hopefully soon enough.
you cant click the light switch of peace on and off with a below average military...its just not in the cards baby...
yea, I agree. you hear that? I agree. but resorting to violence is not the only answer. that is hamas's MO and that is not going to accomplish anything.
every muslim country in the area has been hostile to Israel.
You havent said anything resembling brilliant this entire thread. Go away before you get embarrassed by my superior insight again.
I noticed no one bothered to reply to my logically sound argument and history lesson earlier, so I'm just gonna infer that you agree and close out my presence on this topic with a "Thats what I fucking thought" and hope that you better educate yourselves in the future. HAHAAHA
Hahahahaha...this thread is not about me, it's about facts, which you seem to do a good job of avoiding, oh superior one.
So you agree with Rolands last post yet claim that violence is hama's MO but not Israels? Interesting. As to the talks you are waiting so patiently on, there is quite a big difference between blind optimism and realistic integrity. What makes you think these talks will produce anything different than the past? I too am for peace and reducing the violence asap, but it seems that as long as the US forever has the backs of Israel, why should they (Israel) change, or even consider any sort of reasonable resolution between them and Palestine?
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
That's about right. It's pretty much a knee jerk reaction considering it's Britain, the US and Israel, not just Israel they are looking at.
Everyone wants access the the most holiest parts to call as their own.
I'm not sure what they expected the reaction would be when they started building and staking claims by slicing into the heart of the area and displacing people from their homes.
Talk about literally drawing lines in the sand for people to cross.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
whats the difference? I am an optimist. but I'm not blind and I dont think violence is the answer.
maybe then will maybe they wont, but I'd like to see them happen nonetheless. again, look at the alternative. armed resistance. that will not accomplish anything expect more innocent people dying.
you are for peace but ok with hamas wanting to destroy Israel. is that right? you cant have it both ways
Hamas is clearly part of the problem. But surely concerns of a trap have a legitimate basis. US tax dollars have a chosen side.
Its difficult for me to see how one could take sides in this conflict. Both sides use violence and both sides have walked out of promising negotiations.
I absolutely agree both sides are the problem. but in this specific example, Hamas is the only party not willing to talk. and the main goal continues to be to destroy Israel.
I wish my world was as simple as yours. Life would be so cut and dry. For instance, it would be possible for me to ignore such facts as mentioned in the following cut and paste frenzy...
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10663
'The latest phase began on June 24, when the Israeli army kidnapped two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from their home in Gaza. They were "detained" according to brief notes in the British press. The U.S. media mostly preferred silence.4 They will presumably join the 9,000 other Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, 1,000 reportedly in prison without charges, hence kidnapped -- as were many of the rest, in that they were sentenced by Israeli courts, which are a disgrace, harshly condemned by legal commentators in Israel. Among them are hundreds of women and children, their numbers and fate of little interest. Also of little interest are Israel's secret prisons. The Israeli press reported that these have been "the entry gate to Israel for Lebanese, especially those who were suspected of membership in Hezbollah, who were transferred to the southern side of the border," some captured in battle in Lebanon, others "abducted at Israel's initiative" and sometimes held as hostages, with torture under interrogation. The secret Camp 1391, possibly one of several, was discovered accidentally in 2003, since forgotten.
The next day, June 25, Palestinians kidnapped an Israeli soldier just across the border from Gaza. That did happen, very definitely. Every literate reader also knows the name of corporal Gilad Shalit, and wants him released. The nameless kidnapped Gaza civilians are ignored; international law, while rightly insisting that captured soldiers be treated humanely, absolutely prohibits the extrajudicial seizure of civilians. Israel responded by "bombing and shelling, darkening and destroying, imposing a siege and kidnapping like the worst of terrorists and nobody breaks the silence to ask, what the hell for, and according to what right?" as the fine Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote, adding that "[a] state that takes such steps is no longer distinguishable from a terror organization." Israel also kidnapped a large part of the Palestinian government, destroyed most of the Gaza electrical and water systems, and committed numerous other crimes. These acts of collective punishment, condemned by Amnesty Intrnational as "war crimes," compounded the punishment of Palestinians for having voted the wrong way...
...On the motives, analysts differ. "Hezbollah's official line," the Financial Times reports, "was that the capture was aimed at winning the release of the few remaining Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. But the timing and scale of its attack suggest it was partly intended to reduce the pressure on the Palestinians by forcing Israel to fight on two fronts simultaneously." Many agree, recalling Hezbollah's reaction to the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000 -- when it seized soldiers in a cross-border raid that led to a prisoner exchange -- as well as its response to Israel's devastating attacks in the West Bank in 2002 (Amos Harel).10 Others highlight the prisoner motive, which is also suggested by the exchange in 2000, by the fact that Hezbollah had attempted capture of soldiers before the recent crisis, and by the matter of Israel's secret prisons, mentioned earlier. Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a Lebanese academic specialist on Hezbollah, regards the Gaza connection as primary, but argues that one should not ignore "the domestic significance of these hostages."
Where exactly did you learn that '...the Palestinians and a bunch of their allies decided to go to war...'?
Quite frankly, this is bullshit. If you're talking about the 1948 war then you've got it the wrong way around.
The 1948 War: A Cover up for Ethnic Cleansing
http://www.al-awda.org/zionists4.html
Who started the 1948 War?
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/snakebite/Wars.html
'Following is a list drawn from the New York Times of the major military operations the Zionists mounted before the British evacuated Palestine and before the Arab forces entered Palestine:
* Qazaza (21 Dec. 1947)
* Sa'sa (16 Feb. 1948)
* Haifa (21 Feb. 1948)
* Salameh (1 March 1948)
* Biyar Adas (6 March 1948)
* Qana (13 March 1948)
* Qastal (4 April 1948)
* Deir Yassin (9 April 1948)
* Lajjun (15 April 1948)
* Saris (17 April 1948)
* Tiberias (20 April 1948)
* Haifa (22 April 1948)
* Jerusalem (25 April 1948)
* Jaffa (26 April 1948)
* Acre (27 April 1948)
* Jerusalem (1 May 1948)
* Safad (7 May 1948)
* Beisan (9 May 1948).
David Ben-Gurion confirms this in an address delivered to American Zionists in Jerusalem on 3 September 1950:
"Until the British left, no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the Arabs, while the Haganah, under severe and frequent attack, captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberias and Haifa, Jaffa and Safad" (Ben-Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 530)'
Who started the 1967 Six-Day War?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=10259
http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-after-s13.html
'Ben-Gurion wrote that "a Jewish state...will serve as an important and decisive stage in the realization of Zionism," but only a stage: the borders of the state "will not be fixed for eternity," but will expand either by agreement with the Arabs "or by some other way," once "we have force at our disposal" in a Jewish State. His long-term vision included Jordan and beyond, sometimes even "the Land of Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates. During the 1948 war, he held that "To the Arabs of the Land of Israel only one function remains -- to run away." The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance." Weizmann had in turn informed Lord Balfour after World War I that "the issue known as the Arab problem in Palestine will be of merely local character and, in effect, anyone cognizant of the situation does not consider it a highly significant factor." Hence displacement of the inhabitants by Jewish settlement raises no moral issue. The current President, Haim Herzog, expressed the basic guidelines in 1972: "I do not deny the Palestinians any place or stand or opinion on every matter. But certainly I am not prepared to consider them as partners in any respect in a land that has been consecrated in the hands of our nation for thousands of years. For the Jews of this land there cannot be any partner."
And does '..their own land..' include the illegal settlements?
Please provide evidence of these magnanimous offers of which you speak.
And while were at it, please explain how Israel is the victim here, as you so clearly believe it to be.
And Israel doesn't want to destroy what's left of Palestine? What exactly have they been doing all these years? Playing hop-scotch?
Hamas is the democratically elected government. They are also a legitimate resistance movement against Israeli aggression and the illegal occupation.
Israel blatantly dragging people out of their homes so others can live in them or so they can be bulldozed for new settlements is pretty insane.
Palestinians would actually be endangering their lives just trying to return to their old neighborhood to look at their homes and land that other people are now living on, let alone actually knocking on the door (which many built with their bare hands) and trying to ask for anything back...legal title and deed in hand.
incomprehensible...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What, this?
Or this?
Or this?
For the first, I don't what to say. But I'll try and rembemer that lesson.
For the second, please try to remember that Hamas have been democratically elected by the Palestinian people. There have been peace talks in the past which led to nothing for the people except what was percieved as more injustice, so they elected the Hamas. You would think that not only could this have been forseen by the US and Israel but could also have been prevented by not letting Palestine fall into despair. And after destroying a country in the name of democracy, the least the western world could do is respect the elected leaders.
For the third one, I don't understand the point of ignoring international laws on a subject and using them on another subject to get your ways. The UN has only utility if it is respected by its members.
hey noam, we are getting off track here. I'm not going to defend Israel for having a secret prison. thats wrong and its one of many horrible things the Israelis have done during this conflict.
this thread is about how hamas is preventing peace. Israel wants to talk. so talk. like I keep saying, its either they talk or fight a battle (by killing civilians) that cant be won.
by all means, carry on with violence.
a legitimate resistance movement ??? o thats nice. are you blind? how has this legitimate resistance movement helped the Palestinian people? please tell me.
lol, hey bill, quit trying to simplify the "problem" into something that you just wanna make it. This is much bigger than just "hamas preventing peace" as you see it.
Also, no one ever responded to a question of mine: Hamas were not even invited to the meeting. How is Israel proving that they want to "talk and solve this" if they aren't even inviting them to the meeting?
this isnt a matter of being invited. both sides are saying they want to talk (Israel and abbas). hamas denounced it without ever even considering it. if they wanted to go, they could.
the only solution for hamas (and guys like byzine) is violence.
o' reilly. fatah and israel are ready to talk WITHOUT hamas, who are the democratically-elected govt of palestine, and therefore represent the palestinians' wants BETTER than fatah ever would dream of. in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7043174.stm it mentions that hamas was not invited. This problem is much bigger in that hamas can see it for what it really is. israel is not really trying to solve anything. if they were, they wouldve talked to the elected government of palestine, not some puppet government.
This isn't just hamas not wanting peace. this is a problem that's been going on for over 60 years and every topic about it is related in some way. for example, the war with hezbollah last year is still related to this topic.
not really. pretty sure you gotta be invited to this thing. i doubt they'd let a hamas rep just walk in.
that's just a stupid argument, and i wont bother responding to it.
Oh yes and you would know this because of your extensive background in Israeli/Palestian studies. You blow as much smoke out of your ass as the poeple you constantly criticize.
Nothing the US and Israel do will ever appease you. They can Israel could retreat back to it's existing borders, give all the land back to the Palestinians, and pay each Palestinian reperations for any damaged it caused and you would still find a way to fault Israel for something and eventually lay blame on the door step of the US. While most of us live in what I like to refer to as reality. We can acknowledge that both sides of this clusterfuck have a share of the blame and that any step toward peace is step in the right direction you would much rather continue to blame one side and, from my observation, let the violence continue because it's OK for Israelis to die.
how can they talk to the elected government when that government is ONLY interested in its destruction?
its a shitty situation to say the least. Israel says it wont talk to hamas until it recognizes Israel and renounces violence. Hamas wont talk to Israel until they go back to 1967 borders.
neither will happen. but what will happen is talks IF hamas will renounce violence. personally, I think thats a great first step.
I really dont know. you may be right. but I think the US and abbas would pressure Israel to allow it if hamas wanted to be part of the talks. they clearly do not.
how? what other option has hamas shown?
how can hamas talk to a government that has terrorized its people, jailed thousands unjustly, took them out of their homes, etc (im sure you know what they have done?
why should hamas be the ones to renounce violence? Why can't Israel be the ones to go back to their borders? why should hamas be the ones trying to negotiate, not israel?
I doubt both the US and abbas would not want hamas there. the US, the same people who placed sanctions on hamas, consider them a terrorist group, etc.
well, there IS the option that you just stated above:
again, what option will hamas use besides violence?
the borders changed after a war that was brought onto Israel in 1967. going back to those exact borders will not happen. Israel is not going to give up Jerusalem. the best that will happen is a shared capital
It's all going to blather on for a few more thousand years, or until the red button gets pushed.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
This post is pure guff from start to finish.