News Will Hamas' Victory in Palestinian Elections Lead to Peace or Conflict?

[phcatlantis]

No, actually. It was discussed by SHIBLEY TELHAMI of the Brookings Institution and the University of Maryland, and DENNIS ROSS, Former US Special Envoy to the Middle East
Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, last night on charlie rose. They are, in fact, quite accurate.

I know where you got the idea from. I also know your representation of Ross and Telhami's views is inaccurate, neither points to a single reason for Hamas victory at all. More to the point, neither is expressing a point of view founded in genuine study of this particular election; they are responding on the basis of their admittedly long experience and little else. These gut reactions, whether from experts or not, are premature and of dubious accuracy.

 

[Cyrus]

There is a reason they are called experts in the region. Their responses are not so much 'gut' reactions. They are responses after knowing all the key figures in palestine, and spending a lifetime studying and knowing the country. I think they know what they are talking about and are not so much shooting from the hip. Of course there is not one single reason, but there is a major reason. You don't need a study to understand the general feeling of a population mad at corruption.

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-235/0601261542104711.htm

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453761.9229166666.html

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453761.9229166666.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=avJA_ZrJjS1w

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/27/world/main1244095.shtml

I mean, there is not really that much debate on the general feeling of being tired of corruption.

 

[Hurkyl]

What has been the result of countries like Pakistan or N. Korea having nukes, WWIII? No, but another military attack in the Middle East against Iran could. Here’s how it goes…

Far-fetched hypotheticals are fun! You can prove anything! Let me get in on the fun: I can get to a world war in fewer steps!

Israel becomes paranoid.
Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities because the world community isn't doing anything about it.
Middle Eastern countries declare war.
U.S. lends support to Israel.
Soon, the world is embroiled in WW3.

Actually, I can do even better with N. Korea:
N. Korea nukes Japan.
China does nothing.
U.S. responds in force.
China declars war on U.S. because it doesn't like the U.S. forces so close.
Soon, the world is embroiled in WW3.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't think this has anything to do with Hamas' election...

 

[fargoth]

i don't think we can predict anything right now... maybe after the elections in israel things will clear-up a bit.
as long as the relative quiet that lasted for about a year in israel is kept the situation isn't that bad.

i can think of several possible scenarios, the most probable of which are:
1) hamas will support terror acts organize them and take responsibility for them, israel will blame the palestinian government for these acts and re-entry to gaza strip will most likely happen, sending us back to where we were three years ago or even worse.
2) hamas will keep low and let other organizations do the dirty work, this means the status quo will be kept, no hope for peace though.
3) hamas will recognize israels right to exist because of international pressure and try to prevent acts of terror (this one could be wishful-thinking)
if hamas will recognize israel's right to exist and "Kadima" (the new party sharon founded, which Olmert - the one who convinced sharon to pull out of gaza - is leading right now) or "Avoda" (which is the biggest left party in israel) parties will get the majority of votes there actually could be steps in the right direction. (though the left parties can do less then the right ones, because they are more fregile).

i guess only time will tell

 

[alexandra]

I'm not exactly sure how useful these parallels are. Fatah and Hamas are both organizations with roots and strong ties to terror. And in none of those cases did the national aspirations of a people depend entirely on how forgiving the neighbors they've victimized felt.

The parallels I see are that all these organisations were declared illegal and banned; they all took up armed struggle to defend their people against aggressors (governments imposed during the colonial period) - this is just a brief sketch, of course; one would have to do some reading on the history of this region to gain any real understanding. Regarding victimising neighbours: the South African government had a consistent policy of attacking and destabilising neighbouring countries' liberation movements (because they were seen as a threat to the apartheid government's existence as they provided support to the ANC and the PAC) - in fact, I see lots of parallels!

 

[alexandra]

But letting Iran build nukes unchallenged is going to lead to love and harmony for all, right?

There is no proof that Iran is planning to build nukes, just as there was no proof that there were WMD in Iraq. Plain and simple. If there is no proof, one cannot just claim that Iran is building nukes 'unchallenged'. For the record, I do *not* believe any government at all should have nukes. Anyone who has the ability and inclination to think honestly about the human and planetary implications of using such weapons would be against nuclear weapons (in anyone's hands). The US is the only government in the world that has ever been ruthless enough to ever deploy such a devastating weapon; this is proof of how dangerous such weapons are in its hands. No other country has proved itself capable of such atrocities:

The United States Army Air Force dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the mornings of August 6 and August 9, 1945 during World War II. The goal was to secure the unconditional surrender of Japan. At least 120,000 people died immediately from the two attacks combined, and many more would die in years to come from the effects of nuclear radiation. About 95% of the casualties were civilians. Japan sent notice of its unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15, a week after the bombings. These bombings were the first and only nuclear attacks in world history [so far - my own comment].
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Have a look at some photos of the victims of this barbaric act: http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blyindexhiroshima.htm

To be honest, it sounds like you have it exactly backwards -- if the world community isn't going to deal with what Israel probably views as a severe threat to its own existence (one which the world community has deemed illegal, to boot), then Israel will have to deal with it...

If the Israeli government does not figure out a way to live peacefully and deal fairly with its neighbours, then WWIII (the last war) will commence...

 

[kcballer21]

Hamas won for one simple reason. The fatah party was seen as overly corrupt, and greedy... The people did not vote for Hamas because of their stance on violence, (this anwsers your question Russ), but because quite simply they were tired of the corruption of fatah.

Let's not get too crazy here... the fatah's corruption was definitely a huge factor in the election results. But Russ has a point that is undeniable, Hamas terrorist tactics yielded results. What are this woman's credentials?: Suicide Bombers' Mother Elected to Palestinian Parliament Yea, what a great mom... sure to be a great diplomat.

 

[NateTG]

I think Shimon Perez's comment was quite apt:
"We have seen the result, and now we have to wait and see the result of the result. The people have elected a majority, but they have not elected a policy."

There is a fundamental problem in the region, and especially in Israel that is the result of external powers drawing, more or less, arbitrary lines. There is no easy answer to a situation where two people both believe they have rights to the same land -- especially when there isn't a mutually respected authority.

Hamas has the Tiger by the tail. If they don't take power, they loose credibility. On the other hand, they're not politically prepared to do so.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is no proof that Iran is planning to build nukes, just as there was no proof that there were WMD in Iraq. Plain and simple. If there is no proof, one cannot just claim that Iran is building nukes 'unchallenged'.

Given what we know about the situation, it is certainly feasible that Iran plans to build nukes, and frankly, I think it certainly seems likely.

But I don't really care to argue that -- the main thing I want to convey here is that it's not a reasonable course of action to avoid considering the possibility that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons until they fire one at Israel.

Sure, closing our eyes and crossing our fingers might work out in the end, but it is wholly irresponsible to take that chance.

If the Israeli government does not figure out a way to live peacefully and deal fairly with its neighbours, then WWIII (the last war) will commence...

Shouldn't there also be a burden on Israel's neighbors to figure out a way to live peacefully and deal fairly with Israel?

I certainly don't think it's fair to require the Israelis to suffer the possibility of total annihilation, just to appease our desire to avoid meddling in a sticky situation. The question is why you think it's fair.

 

[SOS2008]

Far-fetched hypotheticals are fun! You can prove anything! Let me get in on the fun: I can get to a world war in fewer steps!

I am rusty on Christian prophecies, but I threw that out based loosely on their beliefs about the End Times.

Given what we know about the situation, it is certainly feasible that Iran plans to build nukes, and frankly, I think it certainly seems likely.

But I don't really care to argue that -- the main thing I want to convey here is that it's not a reasonable course of action to avoid considering the possibility that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons until they fire one at Israel.

So what if Iran does have nukes? So do a lot of countries that aren’t even part of the nuclear treaty. Please provide evidence for why you are so sure Iran will fire on Israel? 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?

I’m very tired of Zionist fear mongering. I care about the best interest of all the people of the world.

 

[phcatlantis]

There is a reason they are called experts in the region.

Yes, because they have published on the subject. Not because they are clairevoyant.

Their responses are not so much 'gut' reactions.

They are, couched in qualifications you saw fit not to include.

Of course there is not one single reason, but there is a major reason. You don't need a study to understand the general feeling of a population mad at corruption.

Sure you do, to measure this general feeling of a population mad with corruption.

 

[phcatlantis]

I mean, there is not really that much debate on the general feeling of being tired of corruption.

No, there is little debate that Fatah corruption had an impact on the polls. We don't know how much yet, because the measures aren't back yet.

 

[phcatlantis]

The parallels I see are that all these organisations were declared illegal and banned...

Still not seeing it, for the simple fact that PNA was formed and run by ex-terrorists throughout its life. This election saw power pass from one group tied to terror to another.

 

[alexandra]

Given what we know about the situation, it is certainly feasible that Iran plans to build nukes, and frankly, I think it certainly seems likely.

But I don't really care to argue that -- the main thing I want to convey here is that it's not a reasonable course of action to avoid considering the possibility that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons until they fire one at Israel.

Sure, closing our eyes and crossing our fingers might work out in the end, but it is wholly irresponsible to take that chance.Shouldn't there also be a burden on Israel's neighbors to figure out a way to live peacefully and deal fairly with Israel?

I certainly don't think it's fair to require the Israelis to suffer the possibility of total annihilation, just to appease our desire to avoid meddling in a sticky situation. The question is why you think it's fair.

Hurkyl, you have to understand something about my perspective: I am not a nationalist - I do not support one 'nation' and oppose any other 'nation'. I myself have lived in a variety of countries, never in the land of my heritage or of my birth (which my parents immigrated from when I was a baby). I do not feel any such thing as 'national pride' - the concept makes no sense to me whatsoever. What I care about is human beings, no matter what nationality or colour or sex or whatever they are. I hate to see needless conflict, death and destruction, and the resulting human misery. I am not anti- the Israeli people and I am not 'pro-Hamas'.

This is my understanding of the situation: ordinary people all over the world suffer as the result of decisions made by powerful people who represent the interests of a tiny minority of very rich people - people who own big corporations like Halliburton, for instance.

You know, when young American men and women (some of them so young they have never had a chance to experience anything of life) die, I am just as distressed as I am at the thought of the innocent civilians who get blown to pieces on the streets or in the markets as they try to go about their daily lives.

I hope this helps you understand my attitude better; whether or not you agree with me

 

[alexandra]

The parallels I see are that all these organisations were declared illegal and banned...

Still not seeing it, for the simple fact that PNA was formed and run by ex-terrorists throughout its life. This election saw power pass from one group tied to terror to another.

One person's 'terrorist group' is another person's 'liberation group': the definitions depend on which side you're on.

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... The South African apartheid government declared the African National Congress (the ANC) a terrorist group, but the black and progressive white people living in South Africa saw the ANC as a liberation group. When the ANC came to power at the end of the apartheid era (in 1994), the 'ex-terrorists', who had been imprisoned as terrorists in South African prisons, were voted in as the legal government and have been in power since. The leader of the ANC, Nelson Mandela, had in fact been in prison for 27 years! He was legally defined as a 'terrorist', as were many of the current members of the ruling ANC.

You can read a basic, sketchy history of South Africa on the wiki site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa
There's some basic information about Nelson Mandela on wiki as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela

 

[Bilal]

I do not support Hamas , but I will never vote for Fatah! I think this is how most of people in Palestine thinking.

- The leaders of Fatah are extremely corrupted.
- 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.
- They recognized Israel but they failed to end the occupation.
- Israel built many settlements on 60% of WB. They continue their strategy to destroy the Palestinian people (the native people) and to convert them to ‘’Red Indian’’.
- The American government is the most hated government in ME. (Bush and Rice for the ME nations are the same as OBL for American) They supported explicitly Fatah, so many people vote for the opposite side.

 

[Bilal]

This is the major reason. Even in Christian areas, Fatah lost the elections!

Hamas won for one simple reason. The fatah party was seen as overly corrupt, and greedy. They were living much better lives than most Palestinians, and they were not producing any results after 10 years. No one actually expected Hamas to win, not even Hamas. Now that they won, they are scattering to find a plan that they can implement to cause change. They will clearly have to change their stance on many issues, or they will not receive the billions in aid that they get from the U.S and Europe. This means they will either have to change, or resign. The second option is a very real option, as Hamas themselves do not want to dilute their values merely for politics, and have said they will resign if necessary. So if things don’t shift, expect a resignation. Another key point is that there is not one Hamas. There are different divisions of Hamas and different extremes. It will be interesting to see *if* they make any changes in their stances. It was a landslide victory at nearly 68% majority for Hamas. But the Palestianian people want change, and Hamas knows this. If they do not produce any of their said goals, they will be voted out in the next election in 4 years. The people did not vote for Hamas because of their stance on violence, (this anwsers your question Russ), but because quite simply they were tired of the corruption of fatah.

 

[Bilal]

Hamas and Fatah , also the left are considered as terrorist organization in the eyes of the Zionists and their supporters ... is that means we are a terrorist nation?

I believe it is relative view, for example the Palestinian considers the American government as a fascist government.

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).

I'm not exactly sure how useful these parallels are. Fatah and Hamas are both organizations with roots and strong ties to terror. And in none of those cases did the national aspirations of a people depend entirely on how forgiving the neighbors they've victimized felt.

 

[Hurkyl]

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"?)

 

[fargoth]

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 isn't where it is because the world thought its a place no one else wants.
and the holocaust isn't 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 won't have to be a second grade citizens in contries that don't want them, and so there won't 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 can't just say you don't 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.

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 that's the only way to get to peace talks.do you see any other way to get the situation solved?

attacking civilians won't help, it won't 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 won't help, because palestinians don't 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 can't see any good that can come out of it for both the israelies or the palastinians.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[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.

israel isn't where it is because the world thought its a place no one else wants.
and the holocaust isn't 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 won't have to be a second grade citizens in contries that don't want them, and so there won't 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 can't just say you don't 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 that's the only way to get to peace talks.

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

attacking civilians won't help, it won't 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 won't help, because palestinians don't 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 can't see any good that can come out of it for both the israelies or the palastinians.

 

[phcatlantis]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[fargoth]

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 won't 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 weren't offered, and israel won't abendon them, there will be a one sided border, which israel will decide on based on ease of defense if palestinians can't be talked to.

and i don't think this is ideal for palestinians, you won't be able to build an airport, and to have what normal countries do if you won't stop the violence and start to talk.

israel got recognition from egypt and jorden, you can't say israel don't 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.

 

[phcatlantis]

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.

 

[SOS2008]

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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…

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.

 

[phcatlantis]

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...

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

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?