Hamas wins!

  • News
  • Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date
  • #51
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
Please provide evidence for why you are so sure Iran will fire on Israel?
Why? I've never argued I'm sure Iran will fire on Israel.

In order for it to be worth considering, it merely has to be a possibility -- even if the odds were as low as 5%, I would feel that it would be something that demands serious attention.


Have you heard of Mutually Assured Destruction? It’s what kept the U.S. and USSR from starting WWIII. Why can’t Iran have nukes like Israel and we can live in a stale mate of peace forever?
When both the US and USSR had nukes, destruction was mutually assured.

As I understand it:

```If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.'''

destruction is not believed to be mutually assured between Israel and "the world of Islam".


I’m very tired of Zionist fear mongering. I care about the best interest of all the people of the world.
But as long as it's not Zionist fear-mongering, it's okay? (post #30)

(P.S. why do you think my post is "fear-mongering", and why do you think it is "Zionist"?)
 
  • #52
320
6
Bilal said:
Many people in ME do not believe in any moral justification for stealing our homeland and creating a (Jews State). If the German killed 6 millions Jews, then they should establish it there ... or in Texas (USA is 300 times as large as Palestine).


israel isnt where it is because the world thought its a place no one else wants.
and the holocaust isnt the reason for the location of the zionists.
the jews were persecuted all over europe, and the holocaust was a factor in declaring a country for the jews, so they wont have to be a second grade citizens in contries that dont want them, and so there wont be any second try for genocide.

the zionists were offered other locations, but they refused to hear about it, they wanted israel, and it wasnt an easier place to get, there was almost no economy there before the first zionists came on around 1870 from russia.

you cant just say you dont accept someone's will to be where he is, and that he should be moved away because its not his right to be there, there are lots of land that belong to zionists who bought it before the country was declared.


if you think the solution for your problem is getting the world to see what "many people" in ME think, and evacuate the zionists to the US or germany, you are delirious.

Bilal said:
They (Fatah) receive the orders from the enemy of Palestinian (Israel), they work for the security of Israel more than the liberation of the Palestinian.

inorder to get peace you must accept the other's right to have some part of the land, the fatah needed to proove they could be talked to, they had to show they recognize israel's right to exist, and they did as israel asked regarding stopping terror attacks because thats the only way to get to peace talks.


do you see any other way to get the situation solved?

attacking civilians wont help, it wont convince anyone that what "many people in ME" think is the solution, nor will it scare israel out of the whole land, it'll just make israel quarentine the palestinian cities so that no suicide bomber could get to its territory.
attacking soldiers wont help, because palestinians dont have enough military strength to do anything really harmful.

the only way i see is to get the issues solved by talking, and fatah was at the right direction, if hamas was chosen to change that direction, i cant see any good that can come out of it for both the israelies or the palastinians.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
alexandra said:
I am not a nationalist - I do not support one 'nation' and oppose any other 'nation'.
My perspective on these discussions is that I don't buy that latter sentence! I perceive lots of bias in this forum, from you and others, on several topics. (Such as any Muslim population >> Israel) That is the position from which I am arguing.

To be honest, I care very little about politics and world affairs -- it's the things like this perceived bias that drive me to post.
 
  • #54
Bilal
Do you recognize the Palestinian who are suffering under the occupation since decades as civilians? Do you recognize the 100000 Iraqi whom are murdered by the American as civilians ?

Your theory about "no resistance if the enemy is powerful is against history and logic".

Palestinian did not resist the occupation for 20 years from 1967 until 1987. During this period, Israel did not even recognize the existence of Palestinian as a nation!! They were calculating how many trucks are needed to kick them out and to steal their houses and lands.

From 1987 until 1993, Palestinian started a peaceful resistance, they lost 2000 - 3000 victims (most of them school students), while the Israel lost a few soldiers in exceptional attacks. During this period Israel recognized the existence of Palestine people without a State...

After 1994, the Palestinian military resistance starts, so the Israeli withdraw from Gaza and they talk about Palestinian state!!

This is what the history taught us: the invaders understand only one language: the force.

French was forced to withdraw from Algeria after 131 years (they used to call Algeria as French Land)
USA was kicked out from Vietnam
Russia was kicked out from Afghanistan..
The neoconservatives and the new American imperialism struggle against the Iraqi resistance..

If all these nations did not resist because they are weaker than their enemies then they will have the fate of (Red Indian). They could be enslaved and their countries will be large (cotton farms).

Israel now exists, and it is not helpful to ask for its destruction but before they get a justification for the existence of their State they should withdraw to 1967 borders. The Crusaders occupied Palestine for 200 years. They murdered and kicked out the Muslims, Jews and eastern Christian. This great kingdom of Jerusalem disappeared because they did not get justification for their existence from the surrounding nations. Israel who has many similarities with the Kingdom of Jerusalem should learn from history and they should think bout next generations.


fargoth said:
israel isnt where it is because the world thought its a place no one else wants.
and the holocaust isnt the reason for the location of the zionists.
the jews were persecuted all over europe, and the holocaust was a factor in declaring a country for the jews, so they wont have to be a second grade citizens in contries that dont want them, and so there wont be any second try for genocide.

the zionists were offered other locations, but they refused to hear about it, they wanted israel, and it wasnt an easier place to get, there was almost no economy there before the first zionists came on around 1870 from russia.

you cant just say you dont accept someone's will to be where he is, and that he should be moved away because its not his right to be there, there are lots of land that belong to zionists who bought it before the country was declared.


if you think the solution for your problem is getting the world to see what "many people" in ME think, and evacuate the zionists to the US or germany, you are delirious.



inorder to get peace you must accept the other's right to have some part of the land, the fatah needed to proove they could be talked to, they had to show they recognize israel's right to exist, and they did as israel asked regarding stopping terror attacks because thats the only way to get to peace talks.

do you see any other way to get the situation solved?

attacking civilians wont help, it wont convince anyone that what "many people in ME" think is the solution, nor will it scare israel out of the whole land, it'll just make israel quarentine the palestinian cities so that no suicide bomber could get to its territory.
attacking soldiers wont help, because palestinians dont have enough military strength to do anything really harmful.

the only way i see is to get the issues solved by talking, and fatah was at the right direction, if hamas was chosen to change that direction, i cant see any good that can come out of it for both the israelies or the palastinians.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
alexandra said:
One person's 'terrorist group' is another person's 'liberation group': the definitions depend on which side you're on.

That may very well be, if I were open-minded to consider something so absurd, but at the risk of belaboring the point I would ask you again to show between those other examples parallel when Hamas is succeeding a party born of an organization who employed similar methods to achieve similar aims and maintains strong ties to similar contemporary groups.

I lived in South Africa and studied politics there as part of my degree in the apartheid era, so know a bit more about that country than the others - so here's some information...

As impressed as I am by your personal credentials, you can't possibly imagine how little I care about this digression. On the point of the parallel, please take some more time to consider it and get back to me.
 
  • #56
3,042
15
That may very well be, if I were open-minded to consider something so absurd

You do know that the British said the colonial soldiers were fighting dirty and ungentlemanly in the war for independence, right?

I lived in South Africa and studied politics there as part of my degree in the apartheid era, so know a bit more about that country than the others - so here's some information...

As impressed as I am by your personal credentials, you can't possibly imagine how little I care about this digression.

I think that makes her more qualified on apartheid than you, so show her a little respect.
 
  • #57
320
6
Bilal said:
Do you recognize the Palestinian who are suffering under the occupation since decades as civilians? Do you recognize the 100000 Iraqi whom are murdered by the American as civilians ?

Your theory about "no resistance if the enemy is powerful is against history and logic".

Palestinian did not resist the occupation for 20 years from 1967 until 1987. During this period, Israel did not even recognize the existence of Palestinian as a nation!! They were calculating how many trucks are needed to kick them out and to steal their houses and lands.

From 1987 until 1993, Palestinian started a peaceful resistance, they lost 2000 - 3000 victims (most of them school students), while the Israel lost a few soldiers in exceptional attacks. During this period Israel recognized the existence of Palestine people without a State...

After 1994, the Palestinian military resistance starts, so the Israeli withdraw from Gaza and they talk about Palestinian state!!

This is what the history taught us: the invaders understand only one language: the force.

French was forced to withdraw from Algeria after 131 years (they used to call Algeria as French Land)
USA was kicked out from Vietnam
Russia was kicked out from Afghanistan..
The neoconservatives and the new American imperialism struggle against the Iraqi resistance..

If all these nations did not resist because they are weaker than their enemies then they will have the fate of (Red Indian). They could be enslaved and their countries will be large (cotton farms).

Resistance is a right for all the nations under occupation. No nation should accept to have the same fate of Red Indian or to accept to live in ‘‘slaves’ farms".

Israel now exists, and it is not helpful to ask for their destruction but before they get a justification for the existence of their State they should withdraw to 1967 borders. The Crusaders occupied Palestine for 200 years. They murdered and kicked out the Muslims, Jews and eastern Christian. This great kingdom of Jerusalem disappeared because they did not get justification for their existence from the surrounding nations. Israel who has many similarities with the Kingdom of Jerusalem should learn from history and they should think bout next generations.

the civilians that are getting killed are the direct effect of the resistance, if those who attack you are civilians, they are bound to get shot.
but the israeli civilians who die in israel arent a fighting militia, nor do they throw stones and molotov cocktails at palestinians, unlike the civilians who die by the israeli forces most of the time.

and resistance is -not- killing civilians as a primary goal, even when israel's underground organizations fought for the fridom of israel, they didnt kill innocents on purpose. and only the "Lehi" tried to kill soldiers and officials, the other organizations only subbotaged the british infrastractures.

as for the historical events:
theses historical events are not that similar, in every one of them there was a homeland for the occupire to return to, it was a distant ocupied land.
i agree that with attacks you could drive israel out of most of WB, but you wont get better results then the offers you got out of barak on camp david - around 90% of WB!, there are large settlements in these 10% that werent offered, and israel wont abendon them, there will be a one sided border, which israel will decide on based on ease of defense if palestinians cant be talked to.

and i dont think this is ideal for palestinians, you wont be able to build an airport, and to have what normal countries do if you wont stop the violence and start to talk.

israel got recognition from egypt and jorden, you cant say israel dont try to get recognition, if arafat tried to negotiate more instead of returning to fighting there would have already been a palestinian state with most of WB, and gaza strip.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
cyrusabdollahi said:
You do know that the British said the colonial soldiers were fighting dirty and ungentlemanly in the war for independence, right?

I do know this has nothing to do with the parallel alexandra raised. I see no value in debating Israel's founding here.

I think that makes her more qualified on apartheid than you...

Oh, I didn't say that.

...so show her a little respect.

I've shown her plenty of respect, and respectfully pointed out I'm not interested in her dissertation on resistance in South Africa or the cost of tea in China.
 
  • #59
SOS2008
Gold Member
31
1
cyrusabdollahi said:
I don't think this has anything to do with Hamas' election.
Hamas’ election is relevant to escalation of Israeli (and U.S.) fears in the region. However, specifically in regard to Iran, you are correct that the Iran Occupation thread is more appropriate for such posts.
Hurkyl said:
Why? I've never argued I'm sure Iran will fire on Israel.

In order for it to be worth considering, it merely has to be a possibility -- even if the odds were as low as 5%, I would feel that it would be something that demands serious attention.
Perhaps not, but you also fail to consider which comes first, the chicken or the egg, and the percent chance that Israel will fire on Iran, or now on Hamas. I will reply in more detail on this topic in the Iran Occupation thread, but in regard to the rest of your post, rhetoric has many functions and at this time the rhetoric from Iran is quit understandable.
Hurkyl said:
But as long as it's not Zionist fear-mongering, it's okay? (post #30)
I don’t see how concern about military escalation in a clearly volatile region is fear mongering. The scenario I provided may have been hypothetical, but that does not mean it isn’t probable.
Hurkyl said:
(P.S. why do you think my post is "fear-mongering", and why do you think it is "Zionist"?)
As you go on to explain in your post #53, perceived bias is what drives you to post. I am a secular American, and like alexandra, feel I can therefore be more objective about conflicts between Arab/Muslims and Israel/Jews. I’ve stated that American Christians have more tendencies to be pro-Israel, but my guess is that some PF members who consistently take a pro-Israel stance are American Jews. In either case, they are clearly biased, and have no grounds to accuse others of being so. This is the difference between my hypothetical and Zionist fear mongering.
phcatlantis said:
I've shown her plenty of respect, and respectfully pointed out I'm not interested in her dissertation on resistance in South Africa or the cost of tea in China.
Riiight…
phcatlantis said:
As impressed as I am by your personal credentials, you can't possibly imagine how little I care about this digression. On the point of the parallel, please take some more time to consider it and get back to me.
Aside from the information being very relevant to earlier questioning of prior “terrorist” governments, you are the one who has yet to show credibility in this forum. For example, in this case of Hamas’ election, those who have an understanding of global politics know such events are not unique or occurring in a vacuum. Learning from history sounds like an excellent idea to me.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
SOS2008 said:
Aside from the information being very relevant to earlier questioning of prior “terrorist” governments...

And none of it particularly relevant to this thread, considering Hamas succeeds another organization with ties to terror/the resistance/whatever you want to call it.

...you are the one who has yet to show credibility in this forum.

I know you are...:biggrin:

Listen, we don't like each other. I get it. Can we be friends now?:wink:


For example, in this case of Hamas’ election, those who have an understanding of global politics know such events are not unique or occurring in a vacuum.

Observing that an election in Palestine that's attracted global attention is not happening in isolation from regional or global event doesn't strike me as terribly profound. In fact, it strikes me as an attempt to lengthen a post unnecessarily.

Learning from history sounds like an excellent idea to me.

So does rescuing little children from man-eating wolves, neither of which we really need to dwell on. Shall we move on?
 
  • #61
SOS2008
Gold Member
31
1
phcatlantis said:
I get it. Can we be friends now?:wink:
It has nothing to do with “liking someone,” but rather the repeated failure to provide meaningful, preferably scholarly contributions instead of your personal opinion. This is an academic forum, not a blog.
 
  • #62
SOS2008 said:
It has nothing to do with “liking someone"...

I think it does. I mean your pretty open with the hostility and whatnot. :biggrin:

...but rather the repeated failure to provide meaningful, preferably scholarly contributions instead of your personal opinion. This is an academic forum, not a blog.

Yes, so I hope that you'll live up to this standard in the future. Now where were we?
 
  • #63
320
6
i thought this thread was getting interesting when bilal, a palestinian who voted for hama, posted here his reasons, and what he thinks was other palestinian's reasons for choosing hamas over fatah.

but instead of talking about this new material, youre just b*tching here... and he havent replied yet to my previous post, what a disappointment...
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Bilal
I did not vote ... and I am unhappy from the results. I believe that many Palestinian who voted to Hamas did not realize that this party will win. They wanted to punish Fatah , but they did not aim to get such results. The main idea that both Fatah and Hamas should not get the majority, so no party can establish the government alone.

In principle, I am against the idea of mixing religion with politics , but it seems you using a dirty tactic to personalize the discussion. However Hamas is not worse than the Zionists.

fargoth said:
i thought this thread was getting interesting when bilal, a palestinian who voted for hama, posted here his reasons, and what he thinks was other palestinian's reasons for choosing hamas over fatah.

but instead of talking about this new material, youre just b*tching here... and he havent replied yet to my previous post, what a disappointment...

Here is my first post about this topic:

Bilal said:
Thanks for this post...

As Palestinian I have mixed feelings:
- This election shows that Palestinian becomes a real democratic nation. There is no place for dictatorship anymore. There is a law above all the political parties and it should be respected by all.
- This election shows that people wanted to punish Fatah for their corruption. Also these results are answer to the rise of the right wing in Israel who rejects the right of Palestine to exist.

Anyway, i have to admit that I am sad to see the secular and the left parties losing these elections. I support to punish Fatah for their corruption ... but I did not expect such results. Anyway, good luck for them in the next election after kicking all the corupted leaders.

I will be back to explain the situation on ground.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
320
6
well, i wasnt trying to personalize the discussion, just to point them to your posts, saying youre a palestinian just made your voice more important in my view.

you didnt vote for hamas, i stand corrected.

i didnt understand from your previous posts if you think the people who voted for hamas expect them to send out more suicide bombers, and continue the bloodshed, or did they just vote against fatah and will accept it if hamas will try to negotiate with israel?

do you think theres any chance for the situation to get better while hamas has the majority? (assuming that the new government of israel will be composed out of people whod be willing to try)

im really interested in hearing your opinions, and id be happy if you could reply to my #57 post in the previous page in addition to this one.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
Bilal said:
However Hamas is not worse than the Zionists.

It's not everyday you get to meet someone who actively supports the enemy. I'd love to know why you think Hamas is better than the Zionists. Not going to debate you, just like to let it all out right here.
 
  • #67
Bilal
The results of this election surprised all including Hamas. Currently Hamas leaders do not know how to contact the Israeli and to keep good relation with Europe …. Actually they never expect to get the majority of the votes.

Usually Hamas get around 20% of the votes. The people think that they should increase this percentage to be around 40% so they can be sure that no party can establish the government alone. Unfortunately, it seems many people think in that way and decided to vote for Hamas … even in the Christian towns; Hamas got high percentage of the votes.

For 13 years there were two moderate Palestinian leaders (Arafat and Abbas) who accepted the right of Israel to exist. They kissed the shoes of Sharon and Bush to sign a peace agreement based on withdrawal to 1967 borders. They recognized Israel in advance, and they gave green light to the Islamic world and the alliance of Palestinian people to have normal relation with Israel … so what the output:
- The Israeli voted for the extreme right wing, who asked to kick out the Palestinian and to invade Egypt, Syria and Jordan (e.g. Minister Lieberman and Minister Ayalon).
- They built hundreds of settlements on stolen lands.
- They destroyed all the Palestinian police centers and the infrastructure
- They killed Arafat after 2 years of siege
So what will be worse than that? Did Israel give any hope for the Palestinian to support the moderate people? Of course not ….

If the Palestinian voted to the right wing in 2006, the Israeli already voted to the extreme right wing (Netinyahoo) in 1996!!

If the Palestinian started suicide bombers in April 1994, the Israeli settlers massacred the Palestinian civilians in cold blood in January 1994.

Anyway, if Hamas and the right Zionist wing succeeded to reach a peace agreement then it will be the end of the conflict forever.

fargoth said:
well, i wasnt trying to personalize the discussion, just to point them to your posts, saying youre a palestinian just made your voice more important in my view.

you didnt vote for hamas, i stand corrected.

i didnt understand from your previous posts if you think the people who voted for hamas expect them to send out more suicide bombers, and continue the bloodshed, or did they just vote against fatah and will accept it if hamas will try to negotiate with israel?

do you think theres any chance for the situation to get better while hamas has the majority? (assuming that the new government of israel will be composed out of people whod be willing to try)

im really interested in hearing your opinions, and id be happy if you could reply to my #57 post in the previous page in addition to this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
Bilal
phcatlantis said:
It's not everyday you get to meet someone who actively supports the enemy. I'd love to know why you think Hamas is better than the Zionists. Not going to debate you, just like to let it all out right here.

May be in America you can not find anti Zionists, but in Palestine and ME we all are anti Zionists... simply because we are in wars with them since around 90 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
79
0
I agree with Bilal very much, the Palestinians probably felt threatened by Israel (undoubtedly from the history of the nation from the 6 Day War forward) but the Hamas will definetely turn it down several notches, now that they're playing with biggers boys now.

And, since I live in New York, we here are having some contreversy over whether the NYPD should continue protecting Palestinial Embassies to the US and the UN, as the 'US does not negotiate with terrorists'. I see no point in even considering something like not protecting Embassies (let alone arresting Palestinian Officials) because the Hamas is no longer a terrorist organisation, (in fact, most of the world regard being anti-zionist prolitically correct) the Hamas is now merely a party in power with an agenda (every party has an agenda, that's the whole point of elections, to decide who's agenda is the best) and their agenda is to destroy a state deemed wrong by nearly every nation overseas. This is no reason to deny protection, as our president had an agenda of toppling Saddam Hussein. The Hamas is no longer a terrrorist organisation and from now on I doubt that it will act like one.
 
  • #70
alexandra
Hurkyl said:
My perspective on these discussions is that I don't buy that latter sentence! I perceive lots of bias in this forum, from you and others, on several topics. (Such as any Muslim population >> Israel) That is the position from which I am arguing.
No, Hurkyl - you cannot redefine my beliefs and perspective. Please note how careful I am always to state "the US administration/government", and distinguish that group from "US citizens", for instance. I know many of my posts are misinterpreted as being "anti-American", but I just simply am not. If I were, why would I be seeking dialogue with 'Americans'? In any case, such a way of viewing the world is very shallow, and I would hope that I am not that shallow (especially as I have been studying politics most of my adult life). I take a much more 'big picture' view of the world than you seem to think.

I analyse the world in terms of those who have power (the global ruling elite that includes the very wealthy and their political frontmen and their media lackeys) and those who do not (ordinary people whose daily lives the powerful callously destroy). I'm on the side of the 'underdog' - the ordinary people, no matter what their nationality. I speak up for the rights of the poor living in the US as well as in 'third world' countries, I never blame army recruits for doing their jobs/following orders (in fact, I feel sorry for them and see them as victims of a system that does not value human life) - see? My position is a lot more complex than you seem to think it is.
To be honest, I care very little about politics and world affairs -- it's the things like this perceived bias that drive me to post.
Politics and world affairs affect every one of us and every aspect of our lives, whether we want this to be the case or not. I think it is important to be aware of what's happening, so if what you perceive as bias drives you to enter dialogue, I think that's good :smile:
 
  • #71
alexandra
Livingod said:
I agree with Bilal very much, the Palestinians probably felt threatened by Israel (undoubtedly from the history of the nation from the 6 Day War forward) but the Hamas will definetely turn it down several notches, now that they're playing with biggers boys now.... The Hamas is no longer a terrrorist organisation and from now on I doubt that it will act like one.
Good points, Livingod. Hamas' recent statements seem to point to the changes coming:
Mr Meshaal said in the Syrian capital, Damascus, that Hamas had no plans to disarm.

"As long as we are under occupation then resistance is our right."

He said Hamas was ready to "unify the weapons of Palestinian factions, with Palestinian consensus, and form an army like any independent state... an army that protects our people against aggression".

But Mr Mashaal also said Hamas would abide by current agreements with Israel "as long as it is in the interest of our people".

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4658872.stm
And an extract from another analysis:
Hamas leaders were talking and acting tough so long as they remained out of power. But once they form government, the heavy responsibility on their shoulders for the good of their people will very probably sober them to the point that would make them suitable for continuing the peace process with Israel. Once in power, Hamas will realise that it has responsibility to the people who elected them and that includes not leading them to utter destruction and humility by rejuvenating a full-fledged military confrontation with Israel but that they should explore the possibilities for a live and let live relationship with their Israeli neighbour. As it is, some Hamas leaders have been taking pains to underline that they have, after all, a basis for coexistence with Israel. Previously, they were unacceptable to Israel and the US for wanting the destruction of Israel. But now these Hamas leaders are no more saying that they would not rest till the destruction of Israel but that their main aspiration or goal is the ending of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Thus, Hamas appears to have already shifted from its earlier position of completely denying Israel’s physical right to exist to one of withdrawal of Israeli forces from their territories. This position is not much different from the one held by the Fatah party.
Reference: http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_25081.shtml
 
  • #72
320
6
Bilal said:
The results of this election surprised all including Hamas. Currently Hamas leaders do not know how to contact the Israeli and to keep good relation with Europe …. Actually they never expect to get the majority of the votes.

Usually Hamas get around 20% of the votes. The people think that they should increase this percentage to be around 40% so they can be sure that no party can establish the government alone. Unfortunately, it seems many people think in that way and decided to vote for Hamas … even in the Christian towns; Hamas got high percentage of the votes.

For 13 years there were two moderate Palestinian leaders (Arafat and Abbas) who accepted the right of Israel to exist. They kissed the shoes of Sharon and Bush to sign a peace agreement based on withdrawal to 1967 borders. They recognized Israel in advance, and they gave green light to the Islamic world and the alliance of Palestinian people to have normal relation with Israel … so what the output:
- The Israeli voted for the extreme right wing, who asked to kick out the Palestinian and to invade Egypt, Syria and Jordan (e.g. Minister Lieberman and Minister Ayalon).
- They built hundreds of settlements on stolen lands.
- They destroyed all the Palestinian police centers and the infrastructure
- They killed Arafat after 2 years of siege
So what will be worse than that? Did Israel give any hope for the Palestinian to support the moderate people? Of course not ….

If the Palestinian voted to the right wing in 2006, the Israeli already voted to the extreme right wing (Netinyahoo) in 1996!!

If the Palestinian started suicide bombers in April 1994, the Israeli settlers massacred the Palestinian civilians in cold blood in January 1994.

Anyway, if Hamas and the right Zionist wing succeeded to reach a peace agreement then it will be the end of the conflict forever.


well, the israeli government was leaded by "extreme" right only for 2 years out of 12 since 1994, and even this extreme went to peace talks which ended when left wing prime minister barak offered 90% of WB and arafat decided he doesnt want to talk anymore and started the violence.

ever since then arafat couldnt be talked to, he said he will stop terror, but he did nothing to stop it, the palestinian police cars were stolen israeli cars, and the guns that were given to them by israel were used against it.

there is no proof for israel killing arafat.

im against the building of illegal settlements, but they ceased to be built since last year.

extreme right - "minister Lieberman and Minister Ayalon" first of all, please find me info on ayalon, that will make him belong to the extreme right wing i think you confused him with someone else...

as for Lieberman, he's a minority.

ever since jorden and egypt signed the peace treaty israel havent talked about fighting them.

and there were no talks of attacking syria, israel just pulled out of lebanon not too long ago.


those "Israeli settlers" massacred the Palestinian civilians in cold blood in January 1994 were one crazy man named baruch goldstein, unlike suicide bombers he wasnt sent by his coutry, israelies were shocked at this act, and never justified it, unlike the justification you hear from palestinians for the suicide bombers.

any, dwelling on "who started it" and who's fault is it, will never bring any possitive resaults, the only way is to leave the hate beside and try to understand each-other.
i think israel is ready to give up most of WB gaza strip, and i think israel will give more lands through peace treaties then through fighting that will make israel fortify its part of WB to prevent the palestinians from entering israel.

the offer that was given in 2001 in taba http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/taba2001.html
is very close to the 67' lines, i dont think fighting would yield better maps then this one for the palestinians.

i hope hamas will realize that talking is the prefered way to get territories.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
223
0
The U.S. continues with it’s usual bias toward Israel and stance against the terrorist government of Hamas, and allows Israel to attack Palestine, which opens the door for the U.S. to attack Iran.

Well you know what to do then. Vote out the Neocons!!!
 
  • #74
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
alexandra said:
No, Hurkyl - you cannot redefine my beliefs and perspective. Please note how careful I am always to state "the US administration/government", and distinguish that group from "US citizens", for instance. I know many of my posts are misinterpreted as being "anti-American", but I just simply am not.
I'm quite confused; where did I say any of this? :confused: I will admit that in addition to perceiving you as being biased in favor of Muslim nations over Israel, I perceive you as being biased in favor of Iraq (or, to be precise, the Iraqi resistance) over the U.S. (or, to be precise, the current administration), but nowhere did I suggest anything remotely close to you being anti-American. :confused:
 
Last edited:
  • #75
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
SOS2008 said:
I will reply in more detail on this topic in the Iran Occupation thread, but in regard to the rest of your post, rhetoric has many functions and at this time the rhetoric from Iran is quit understandable.
Given the quote to which you're replying, I have to assume you're offering this as a reason why we shouldn't give the Iranian nuke possibility any consideration.

But I don't understand how that follows from asserting that the rhetoric is understandable.


SOS2008 said:
I don’t see how concern about military escalation in a clearly volatile region is fear mongering.
You didn't seem to have any trouble inventing a fear-mongering accusation when I talked about escalation in a clearly volatile region. :grumpy:


SOS2008 said:
I am a secular American, and like alexandra, feel I can therefore be more objective about conflicts between Arab/Muslims and Israel/Jews.
And, as I've stated, I don't buy it. (Actually, I will reserve judgement, since I cannot be sure at the moment if I'm just lumping you in with everybody else, or if my perception of you is really based upon your posts)

SOS2008 said:
I’ve stated that American Christians have more tendencies to be pro-Israel, but my guess is that some PF members who consistently take a pro-Israel stance are American Jews.
I suppose if that helps you rationalize your beliefs... :rolleyes: Don't you think it might be possible that someone who is not a Jew, and is not an "American Christian" might still be able to disagree with you?

This is my #1 beef with many of the "free-thinker" types -- they seem incapable of believing anyone capable of "free-thought" would disagree with them. :grumpy: (My apologies if you're not a "free-thinker" type)

Admittedly, I am, in the literal sense, an "American Christian", but I very strongly disassociate myself from the type of people that term is being used to describe around here. (e.g. Abortion-doctor bombing crusade-mongering fanatics)


Let's recall to what this last whole section was a reply:

SOS2008 said:
Hurkyl said:
(P.S. why do you think my post is "fear-mongering", and why do you think it is "Zionist"?)
As you go on to explain in your post #53, perceived bias is what drives you to post. I am a secular American, and like alexandra, feel I can therefore be more objective about conflicts between Arab/Muslims and Israel/Jews. I’ve stated that American Christians have more tendencies to be pro-Israel, but my guess is that some PF members who consistently take a pro-Israel stance are American Jews. In either case, they are clearly biased, and have no grounds to accuse others of being so. This is the difference between my hypothetical and Zionist fear mongering.
The only thing in this entire section that could be construed as a reply to my quote is "perceived bias is what drives you to post" -- are you saying that anyone who perceives bias in this forum must be a Zionist fear-monger? Given the rest of this paragraph, it sure seems so.

I would like to give you more credit that that, but I cannot come up with a better explanation...
 

Related Threads on Hamas wins!

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
Q
Replies
5
Views
2K
D
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
K
Replies
2
Views
2K
B
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Top