Israeli blockade 'forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food'

[FireGarden]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/21/israel-gaza-strip-middle-east

Impoverished Palestinians on the Gaza Strip are being forced to scavenge for food on rubbish dumps to survive as Israel's economic blockade risks causing irreversible damage, according to international observers.

Figures released last week by the UN Relief and Works Agency reveal that the economic blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza in July last year has had a devastating impact on the local population. Large numbers of Palestinians are unable to afford the high prices of food being smuggled through the Hamas-controlled tunnels to the Strip from Egypt and last week were confronted with the suspension of UN food and cash distribution as a result of the siege.

The figures collected by the UN agency show that 51.8% - an "unprecedentedly high" number of Gaza's 1.5 million population - are now living below the poverty line. The agency announced last week that it had been forced to stop distributing food rations to the 750,000 people in need and had also suspended cash distributions to 94,000 of the most disadvantaged who were unable to afford the high prices being asked for smuggled food.

Egypt gets some flak, too, for supporting the collective punishment of civilians. And another private boat recently defied the blockade.

[BirdStrike]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/21/israel-gaza-strip-middle-east Egypt gets some flak, too, for supporting the collective punishment of civilians. And another private boat recently defied the blockade.


Hamas is in military control of Gaza following conquest by military action.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/15/israel4

Hamas fighters today basked in triumph after taking complete control in Gaza as the west scrambled for a response to the arrival of Islamist power on Israel's doorstep.

In a stark demonstration of the new facts on the ground, a masked Hamas fighter sat down at the desk of the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, and declared an end to the western-backed authority in the Gaza strip.

n an imaginary telephone call to the US, a fighter from the Islamist movement's armed wing, Izz el-Deen al-Qassam, joked: "Hello Condoleezza Rice. You have to deal with me now, there is no Abu Mazen anymore."


Hamas bears sole responsibility for the Palestinians' plight in Gaza. Sorry.. but that's what happens when Hamas decided to place Gaza under the authority of an army hostile to the Palestinian National Authority.

Next issue? :D

[moon1969]

Hamas is in military control of Gaza following conquest by military action.




Hamas bears sole responsibility for the Palestinians' plight in Gaza. Sorry.. but that's what happens when Hamas decided to place Gaza under the authority of an army hostile to the Palestinian National Authority.

Next issue? :D

So <birdstrike> says that palestinian kids should starve because of what Hamas did? Too bad jews will lose. Nobody feels sory for greedy selfish people. Hamas is wrong but IDF and Israel are no better. Jews are not morally superior to Hamas.
Do not use personals insults and when referring to other posters, please use their forum names.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well, here's a hint.

You are blaming soverign nation x for strangling nation y for behing hostile to soverign nation x.

One wonders why he doesn't blame soverign nation x. Oh, I know.

It's because Nation Y doesn't care about it's citizens and continues on it's path of self destruction?

[Thunder]

all this would end, if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel.

[Thunder]

So zionazi says that palestinian kids should starve because of what Hamas did? Too bad jews will lose. Nobody feels sory for greedy selfish people. Hamas is wrong but IDF and Israel are no better. Jews are not morally superior to Hamas.

Israel is indeed..morally superior to Hamas.

You shouldn't be calling anyone "Nazis", considering that your people fought with them against the Soviets.

[BirdStrike]

So zionazi...

Awesome! Now I have a new moniker to add to being called a "brain-dead Israeli Apologist!" Thanks Moon! :D

p.s. Godwin! :p

... says that palestinian kids should starve because of what Hamas did?

Nope. Didn't say Palestinian kids have to starve. I said since Hamas decided to place Gaza under it's authority it is Hamas who bears sole responsibility for the Palestinians living in Gaza.

....Too bad jews will lose. Nobody feels sory for greedy selfish people.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. Could you be less vague please? ;)

Hamas is wrong but IDF and Israel are no better. Jews are not morally superior to Hamas.

You're a revolutionary poet Moon!

[fuelair]

So zionazi says that palestinian kids should starve because of what Hamas did? Too bad jews will lose. Nobody feels sory for greedy selfish people. Hamas is wrong but IDF and Israel are no better. Jews are not morally superior to Hamas.
Jews are so superior (I am not one by the way - though that is simply a condition of birth) to Hamas dogs that they can't see them from their height except as the slime they are.

I would add that they (Hamass) fight hiding among civilians like the cowards they are, but that really goes without saying.
Have a nice day!:D

[The Fool]

Just like when we were blockading Iraq and it was affecting ordinary Iraqi children etc....we just beat our chest and said "stuff them" its all saddams fault ....ooops hang on, is that what we did....or did we give a damn?

Do not make thinly veiled, yet obvious insults toward other posters.
Thank you.

[geni]

We ignored pics like this in the 60s http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Starved_girl.jpg

What makes people think that reports of people haveing a hard time looking for food will concern us now?

[FireGarden]

Geni,
It concerns me. That's enough for me to post it. But I can't believe I'm the only one.

Punishing civilians for the actions of their government is bin Laden's justification for his own actions. It is called terrorism. And it doesn't work.

[geni]

Geni,
It concerns me. That's enough for me to post it. But I can't believe I'm the only one.

Punishing civilians for the actions of their government is bin Laden's justification for his own actions. It is called terrorism.

Only if we don't like the people doing it.


And it doesn't work.

Tell that to the army of Biafra. Or the boers. Heh one of the things that made germany quit in WW1 was the navy blockade. It can work if the people doing it are strong enough.

[Beerina]

We ignored pics like this in the 60s http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Starved_girl.jpg

What makes people think that reports of people haveing a hard time looking for food will concern us now?

And what will make us think the ******* governments that look forward to their own people starving as ways to manipulate the West, ways to control recalcitrant districts at home, or both, will concern us, now?

[geni]

And what will make us think the ******* governments that look forward to their own people starving as ways to manipulate the West, ways to control recalcitrant districts at home, or both, will concern us, now?


Well in the past they've concerned us enough that we decided we should sell weapons to them (we kinda sold a bunch of stuff to nigeria during the Biafran war). Biafrans never had a chance really.

[WildCat]

That's what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

That's what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you.

Yes some people really do see the Palestinians as animals don't they Wildcat?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Israel is indeed..morally superior to Hamas.

Of course it isn't. It's just as bad if not worse. Israel should know better than to confine people in ghettos and treat them like animals.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Jews are so superior (I am not one by the way - though that is simply a condition of birth) to Hamas dogs that they can't see them from their height except as the slime they are.

I would add that they (Hamass) fight hiding among civilians like the cowards they are, but that really goes without saying.
Have a nice day!:D

Your attitude is vile. :mad::mad:

[WildCat]

Yes some people really do see the Palestinians as animals don't they Wildcat?
Why is Israel the only country in the world expected to provide aid to a country which has vowed to destroy it, and elected a government pledged to do just that?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Hamas bears sole responsibility for the Palestinians' plight in Gaza. Sorry.. but that's what happens when Hamas decided to place Gaza under the authority of an army hostile to the Palestinian National Authority.

Next issue? :D

And your attitude is vile also.

Israel bears responsibility for collectively punishing innocent people for the actions of Hamas militants.

[Thunder]

The Palestinians bear responsibility for electing Hamas and allowing them to rain down rockets on innocent Israeli civilians.

[Thunder]

Why is Israel the only country in the world expected to provide aid to a country which has vowed to destroy it, and elected a government pledged to do just that?

why doesn't Egypt give them all the food, water, medicine, and fuel they need?

[The Fool]

Why is Israel the only country in the world expected to provide aid to a country which has vowed to destroy it, and elected a government pledged to do just that?

Nobody "expects them" to provide aid....thats your spin on it. What everyone should "expect" is that they take into consideration the effects on civilians of blockades aimed at military forces.

But you want to forgive them that responsibility do you?

There are plenty of people happy to provide aid to palestinian civilians it just takes Israel to say ok.....

[The Fool]

why doesn't Egypt give them all the food, water, medicine, and fuel they need?
do you lack 2 minutes to spare to find out?

Egypt agrees to go along with the blockade....why? I can think of a number of reasons.

1. They fear upsetting Israel
2. They fear upsetting the US
3. They don't want anything to do with Palestinians.
4. All of the above.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The Palestinians bear responsibility for electing Hamas and allowing them to rain down rockets on innocent Israeli civilians.

The collective punishment of the Palestinians officially started 60 years ago.

When did hamas get elected?

I condemn the killing of innocent civilians whoever they are, but I wouldn't expect you to have any humanity for the innocent Palestinians.

[The Fool]

The Palestinians bear responsibility for electing Hamas and allowing them to rain down rockets on innocent Israeli civilians.
like Iraqis bear responsibility for Saddam (elected overwhelmingly!!!) oooops, no....when saddam was nobbled it was because we had to go in there and free all the "good" iraqis.....How come the same doesn't apply to Palestinians?

The popularity of victim blaming with Palestinian civilians is amazing. Its like these people have a unique "baddy" status unlike any other people in the world past or present.

[BirdStrike]

guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/29/israel)

The Islamist party Hamas has won control of seven out of 10 councils in the Gaza Strip, dealing a crushing blow to the Fatah party of the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600372.html)

The radical Islamic movement Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament, according to official election results announced Thursday, trouncing the governing Fatah party in a contest that could dramatically reshape the Palestinians' relations with Israel and the rest of the world.


BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6755299.stm)

An uneasy calm has returned to the Gaza Strip where Hamas is in full control following a series of attacks on key strongholds of its rival, Fatah. Hamas militants seized the presidential compound in Gaza City overnight after a week of factional fighting, which has left more than 100 people dead.

Who? Us? Responsible for our own citizens? Naaaaaaaaaa.... it's Israel's fault!!!...

The popularity of victim blaming with Palestinian civilians is amazing.

Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept - see: Hamas winning the popular vote, and Hamas taking over the Gaza Strip.. One form of this denial is absolving the Palestinian people for being even partially responsible for electing Hamas by a large majority.

[The Fool]

anyone interested in explaining to me why we had to "free" the Iraqis but we don't have to "free" the palestinians?

[The Fool]

anyone interested in explaining to me why we had to "free" the Iraqis but we don't have to "free" the palestinians?

Hi Fool, let me give you a suggestion.

A coalition of the willing invades the occupied territories, sets up elections where the palestininas can vote for a range of candidates that we approve. They elect the government of the new free nation of palestine.

what would be the problem with that approach? It was considered appropriate for Iraq...

[gtc]

What everyone should "expect" is that they take into consideration the effects on civilians of blockades aimed at military forces.

What makes you think they don't?

[gtc]

like Iraqis bear responsibility for Saddam (elected overwhelmingly!!!) oooops, no....when saddam was nobbled it was because we had to go in there and free all the "good" iraqis.....How come the same doesn't apply to Palestinians?

And yet you complain when Israel does intervene militarily in the Gaza strip.

[WildCat]

anyone interested in explaining to me why we had to "free" the Iraqis but we don't have to "free" the palestinians?
Feel free to explain how the Iraqi elections (in the Saddam era) were free and fair.

[gtc]

Hi Fool, let me give you a suggestion.

A coalition of the willing invades the occupied territories, sets up elections where the palestininas can vote for a range of candidates that we approve. They elect the government of the new free nation of palestine.

what would be the problem with that approach? It was considered appropriate for Iraq...

Israel has intervened in Palestine. That's how come you call them the occupied territories.

Elections have been set up for the Palestinians and they have elected their leaders.

And yet here we still are.

[gdnp]

Why is Israel the only country in the world expected to provide aid to a country which has vowed to destroy it, and elected a government pledged to do just that?
Because they are the occupying power. That places the responsibility for the civilian population in their hands under international law.

why doesn't Egypt give them all the food, water, medicine, and fuel they need?Because they are not the occupying power in the Gaza strip. They have renounced claim on the territory. Israel has not.


Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept - see: Hamas winning the popular vote, and Hamas taking over the Gaza Strip.. One form of this denial is absolving the Palestinian people for being even partially responsible for electing Hamas by a large majority.
So wait...first you have a problem that Hamas took over Gaza militarily, and now you have a problem that Hamas was elected by a large majority of the Gaza population. If I didn't know better, I'd think that maybe your problem was with Hamas, not how they came into power. :rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

Egypt agrees to go along with the blockade....why? I can think of a number of reasons.

1. They fear upsetting Israel
2. They fear upsetting the US
3. They don't want anything to do with Palestinians.
4. All of the above.

Thank you for saving me the trouble.

To elabortate on Fool's pithy observation:

3a. "don't much care for the Palestinians in the first place, given the cause of the Pals has caused Egypt two embarassing defeats at the hands of the Israelis.

2as "to the tune of a few billion a year, US dollars."

Chamberlain didn't know that peace could be purchased for cash, rather than for silly gentlemen's agreements between Powers over the also-rans' various fates.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

anyone interested in explaining to me why we had to "free" the Iraqis but we don't have to "free" the palestinians?
The American's dont want to invade Israel ... yet. :p

DR

[BirdStrike]

Hi Fool, let me give you a suggestion.

A coalition of the willing invades the occupied territories, sets up elections where the palestininas can vote for a range of candidates that we approve. They elect the government of the new free nation of palestine.

what would be the problem with that approach? It was considered appropriate for Iraq...


It is possible that the subject in denial may shift culpability for the reality, and attempt transference to another party - see: An imaginary "coalition of the willing," who will install "a range of candidates that we approve." ;)

[WildCat]

Because they are the occupying power. That places the responsibility for the civilian population in their hands under international law.
Israeli troops haven't occupied Gaza since 2005.

[Darth Rotor]

Israeli troops haven't occupied Gaza since 2005.
Variation on your theme:

Hamas is the occupying power. Why are they not held to account?

Well, the honest answer is:

The UN/International Community are real rhymes with hunts when it comes to holding much of anyone to account.

Oil for food for fifty, Alex. :p

DR

[BirdStrike]

Because they are the occupying power.

1) So Hamas forces took control of Gaza, but Israel actually occupies Gaza. Uhhhmmm. ok. :boggled:

That places the responsibility for the civilian population in their hands under international law.

2) So Hamas forces took control of Gaza, but as the real occupying power, Israel is actually responsible for the civilian population of Gaza under international law.

Because they are not the occupying power in the Gaza strip.

3) Hamas actually doesn't occupy Gaza. Ahhh...ok.

So wait...first you have a problem that Hamas took over Gaza militarily,

4) So Hamas does occupy Gaza now? I'm getting confused.

...and now you have a problem that Hamas was elected by a large majority of the Gaza population.

5) So even though Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament... it is really me that has "a problem."

If I didn't know better, I'd think that maybe your problem was with Hamas, not how they came into power. :rolleyes:

6) I have a hard time supporting Islamist militants recognized as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Canada, and Israel. Call me crazy. :rolleyes:

[BirdStrike]

Israeli troops haven't occupied Gaza since 2005.

We both know Israel doesn't occupy Gaza. We both know as the military force in charge of Gaza Hamas is actually the party responsible for the citizens living there. We also know Israel would never cede air and sea control to an Islamic terrorist organization sworn to it's destruction.

But it's quite amusing watching the denial of Hamas's responsibilities in this thread, and the rejection that the Palestinian people had anything to do with Hamas winning a large majority in their Palestinian parliament.

Business as usual at JREF it seems. ;)


edited to add

legal-dictionary (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Occupying+power)

Although the power of the occupying army is broad, the military authorities are obligated under international law to maintain public order, respect private property, and honor individual liberties.

washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400145.html)

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dissolved the Palestinian government Thursday and declared a state of emergency after rival Hamas forces took complete control of the Gaza Strip in what the Islamic movement called the territory's "liberation."

"This is a victory not only for Hamas but for all Palestinians," said Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza. "The first liberation was from the occupation. This liberation is from these Fatah militias supported by our enemies."

[The Fool]

Feel free to explain how the Iraqi elections (in the Saddam era) were free and fair.
seems to me any election is a matter of choice between available options.

who would you have voted for The Hamas faction or the Yasser Arafat faction. Either way you are a supporter of terrorists?

we need to invade palestine and provide them with a couple of alternate governments all of which we approve of....agreed?

[The Fool]

Israel has intervened in Palestine. That's how come you call them the occupied territories.

Elections have been set up for the Palestinians and they have elected their leaders.

And yet here we still are.
No...we need to only give them a choice we appprove of. We didn't let the Bathist parties stand in Iraqi elections. We need to do the same thing in Palestine.

Invade
invite alternate acceptable governments to stand.
proclaim free palestine

whats wrong with that scenario?

[fuelair]

Your attitude is vile. :mad::mad:
Coming from you, that makes me truly proud!! Thank you!!
:)

[Thunder]

No...we need to only give them a choice we appprove of. We didn't let the Bathist parties stand in Iraqi elections. We need to do the same thing in Palestine.

Invade
invite alternate acceptable governments to stand.
proclaim free palestine

whats wrong with that scenario?

Yes. Israel should an install a liberal-Democratic government in Gaza.

Im sure it would last..um....4 minutes.

Hamas won for a reason.

[WildCat]

seems to me any election is a matter of choice between available options.

who would you have voted for The Hamas faction or the Yasser Arafat faction. Either way you are a supporter of terrorists?

we need to invade palestine and provide them with a couple of alternate governments all of which we approve of....agreed?
Now that you've punted rather than explain how the Iraqi elections were free and fair, you wish to discuss the Gaza elections.

So feel free to explain why the residents of Gaza decided to elect an internationally recognized terrorist group to power, rather than elect non-terrorists to power. If you care to, explain why any party advocating peace with Israel and recognition of its right to exist can't even get enough support to be viable in the first place.

[The Fool]

Now that you've punted rather than explain how the Iraqi elections were free and fair, you wish to discuss the Gaza elections.

Sorry, I didn't notice you had been distracted by the word "election". You choose to hold Palistinians responsible for the terrorists...but not Iraqis. I was just wondering why as the answer "because they elected them" is so shallow I assumed you would be too clever to swallow it....my bad.

who would you have voted for? Hamas or fatah?




So feel free to explain why the residents of Gaza decided to elect an internationally recognized terrorist group to power, rather than elect non-terrorists to power. If you care to, explain why any party advocating peace with Israel and recognition of its right to exist can't even get enough support to be viable in the first place.

come on son....where is your spine. Why don't we invade, throw out the terrorist government. Give them a couple of alternate governments that we approve of to choose from and bingo!

whats wrong with that scenareo?

[The Fool]

Yes. Israel should an install a liberal-Democratic government in Gaza.

Im sure it would last..um....4 minutes.

Hamas won for a reason.
No parky...you have to get off this fixation that it would be Israel imposing anything......we get a coalition of the willing to do it. Israel is not allowed to run the place any more....got a problem with that?

[WildCat]

Sorry, I didn't notice you had been distracted by the word "election". You choose to hold Palistinians responsible for the terrorists...but not Iraqis.
No, I don't hold the citizens of a dictatorship responsible for the actions of the dictator.

I was just wondering why as the answer "because they elected them" is so shallow I assumed you would be too clever to swallow it....my bad.
Let me know when you want to actually make any sense, because your incoherent babbling doesn't make for good conversation.

who would you have voted for? Hamas or fatah?
I would have voted for some other party or sat out the election. The Palestinians, OTOH, came out in droves to vote for an internationally recognized terrorist group in what all outside observers said was a free and fair election.

Now, maybe you'd like to explain why Palestinians should face no consequences for electing an internationally recognized terrorist group as their government?





come on son....where is your spine. Why don't we invade, throw out the terrorist government. Give them a couple of alternate governments that we approve of to choose from and bingo!

whats wrong with that scenareo?[/quote]

[WildCat]

come on son....where is your spine. Why don't we invade, throw out the terrorist government. Give them a couple of alternate governments that we approve of to choose from and bingo!

whats wrong with that scenareo?
Nah, I'm happy letting them lie in the bed they made for themselves.

Maybe you Aussies can invade and fix the place if it bothers you so. Shouldn't be a problem, they're just normal everyday people just like the people in your town I'm sure.

[Skeptic]

Impoverished Palestinians on the Gaza Strip are being forced to scavenge for food on rubbish dumps to survive

Oh, things aren't THAT bad. They DO have enough money for rockets, mortars, daily bombing of Israeli cities, AK-47s, sending Hamas members to be trained in Iran, staging mass performances about how the evil Jews are going to be butchered, TV stations with Mickey Mouse characters teaching five-year-olds to kill Jews, etc., etc., etc.

Sorry, but I find it hard to feel compassion for blockading those whose open, and expressed, goal is to use every penny they get for weapons to kill me.

Besides, lifting the blockade won't help: since an impoverished population is so good in getting the useful idiots to blame Israel, Hamas will continue to impoverish its own people deliberately even if the blockade will be lifted, for propaganda purposes, and will simply use any additional money it can get to smuggle in more weapons to kill more Jews and bolster its own control.

This is a well-known trick: Saddam Hussein did this in Iraq, deliberately starving his people to get the same useful idiots to shed tears and blame the "evil USA sanctions", while using the money he got for food to build more palaces, tanks, etc., etc.

It is the same trick used by African dictators, too: ask the west for help to stop starvtion, get money, spend it all building palaces for yourself, rinse, repeat. The useful idiots LOVE it. Makes them feel compassionate to spend taxpayer's money to help "the poor in Africa" -- actually, the dictators there -- which leads, as Theodore Dalrymple said, to African aid being merely a case of poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.

Anyway, the bottom line is that to support lifting the blockade means merely to support the killing of more Jews with bigger and better weapons. It will be of little or no help to the Palestinians, who will be deliberately and cynically impoverished and brutally controlled under Hamas (as they were under Arafat) so that their leaders will be able to squeeze the west for money for weapons to kill Jews, no matter what.

I know, I know -- this is "Al-Guardian" we're talking about, so I guess I shoudln't be surprised.

[DC]

looks like for some, Palestinians are not humans anymore.
will extrem poverty prevent terrorism or will it increase it.

[fuelair]

looks like for some, Palestinians are not humans anymore.
will extrem poverty prevent terrorism or will it increase it.
Palestinians have potential to be people and many are. Hamas, not really. If Hamas was where it should be, Palestine should be fine.longs

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Oh, things aren't THAT bad. They DO have enough money for rockets, mortars, daily bombing of Israeli cities, AK-47s, sending Hamas members to be trained in Iran, staging mass performances about how the evil Jews are going to be butchered, TV stations with Mickey Mouse characters teaching five-year-olds to kill Jews, etc., etc., etc.

Sorry, but I find it hard to feel compassion for blockading those whose open, and expressed, goal is to use every penny they get for weapons to kill me.

Besides, lifting the blockade won't help: since an impoverished population is so good in getting the useful idiots to blame Israel, Hamas will continue to impoverish its own people deliberately even if the blockade will be lifted, for propaganda purposes, and will simply use any additional money it can get to smuggle in more weapons to kill more Jews and bolster its own control.

This is a well-known trick: Saddam Hussein did this in Iraq, deliberately starving his people to get the same useful idiots to shed tears and blame the "evil USA sanctions", while using the money he got for food to build more palaces, tanks, etc., etc.

It is the same trick used by African dictators, too: ask the west for help to stop starvtion, get money, spend it all building palaces for yourself, rinse, repeat. The useful idiots LOVE it. Makes them feel compassionate to spend taxpayer's money to help "the poor in Africa" -- actually, the dictators there -- which leads, as Theodore Dalrymple said, to African aid being merely a case of poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.

Anyway, the bottom line is that to support lifting the blockade means merely to support the killing of more Jews with bigger and better weapons. It will be of little or no help to the Palestinians, who will be deliberately and cynically impoverished and brutally controlled under Hamas (as they were under Arafat) so that their leaders will be able to squeeze the west for money for weapons to kill Jews, no matter what.

I know, I know -- this is "Al-Guardian" we're talking about, so I guess I shoudln't be surprised.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Have you got some paranoid twisted chip on your shoulder that the whole world is out to get 'Jews'. Get real FFS.

What a disgusting attitude saying that the average Palestinian just wants to kill Jews.

What the average Palestinian wants is to live a decent life in peace without being subjected to the persecution from Israel.

You are a 'useful idiot' to the Zionist extremists and you're comments above are just as bad as the Islamic Extremist rhetoric too.

It's people like you with attitudes like that who are continuing this vile collective punishment of the Palestinians.

I hope the Palestinians continue to stand up to the vile attitudes of people like you. Why should they roll over and be subservient to Zionist extremists who want to drive them out of Palestine.

I bet you haven't got the courage to walk into Gaza and spout your vile rhetoric.

Thankfully ordinary peace loving Israelis don't share such views.



Anyway, the bottom line is that to support lifting the blockade means merely to support the killing of more Jews with bigger and better weapons.

What BS and what a disgusting attitude. :mad:

I fully support the lifting of the blockade, but I do not support the killing of Jews or anybody else.

I'm glad not everyone in this world is so inhumane as to want to collectively punish a whole group of people for the crimes of a few. Not everyone in this world is racist, thankfully.

And tell us this Skeptic? What about the Jews who support the lifting of the blockades? Are they also supporting the killing of Jews?

[gdnp]

1) So Hamas forces took control of Gaza, but Israel actually occupies Gaza. Uhhhmmm. ok. :boggled:
Who controls the borders? Not just the border with Israel, but the sea coast? Who controls the airspace? Why doesn't Hamas just ship in supplies from outside? Oh, I guess that would be because the Israelis run the place like a prison camp, wouldn't it? Hamas may be acting as the guards, but if they try to leave, they'll be shot.



2) So Hamas forces took control of Gaza, but as the real occupying power, Israel is actually responsible for the civilian population of Gaza under international law. Hamas control is the equivalent of the prisoners running the prison. The Israelis let them run the internal affairs because it is easier than getting their own people shot. The Gaza strip cannot feed itself. Unemployment is more than 50%. They have no fuel except what is shipped in. Who controls the borders? Oh, that would be Israel.

Who was the occupying power in the Warsaw ghetto?



3) Hamas actually doesn't occupy Gaza. Ahhh...ok.You can be an occupant without being the occupying power. Who controls everything brought legally in or out of Gaza?


4) So Hamas does occupy Gaza now? I'm getting confused.I am an occupant of my house. That does not make me the occupying power.
Who controls the coast? Who controls the airspace? Who controls everything that comes in and out?


5) So even though Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament... it is really me that has "a problem." No, Israel and the Palestinians have a problem. The US demanded that the Palestinians hold free and fair elections, and the Israelis hamstrung the Palestinian authority which, combined with their own incompetence and corruption, caused their popularity to plummet. Hamas' election was the direct result.

6) I have a hard time supporting Islamist militants recognized as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Canada, and Israel. Call me crazy. :rolleyes:Supporting Hamas would be sending them money and weapons. Has anyone asked you to do that?

So here's a question for you: why do you think a large majority of the Palestinian population voted a terrorist organization in to power in Gaza? Do you think that current Israeli policies are likely to lead to a more or less radical population?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

looks like for some, Palestinians are not humans anymore.

Unfortunately there are people like Skeptic in Israel who are mistreating Palestinians on the basis they are not human.


will extreme poverty prevent terrorism or will it increase it.

people like Skeptic don't understand that people in a desperate situation will use desperate measures to fight back.

[DC]

Unfortunately there are people like Skeptic in Israel who are mistreating Palestinians on the basis they are not human.




people like Skeptic don't understand that people in a desperate situation will use desperate measures to fight back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

it will backfire, then the outcry is big again in our media.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Nah, I'm happy letting them lie in the bed they made for themselves.

Maybe you Aussies can invade and fix the place if it bothers you so. Shouldn't be a problem, they're just normal everyday people just like the people in your town I'm sure.

I know you don't really care, but the Palestinians are human beings. With feelings. Maybe one day your wife or mother might not be able to get medical care and die in pain because some occupying racist power has a checkpoint set up in the middle of Chicago. Let's hope that never happens eh? ;)

[Tin Foil Timothy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

it will backfire, then the outcry is big again in our media.

Organizations that rely on force, intimidation and persecution to perpetuate their existence always fail in the end.

[gdnp]

We both know Israel doesn't occupy Gaza. We both know as the military force in charge of Gaza Hamas is actually the party responsible for the citizens living there. We also know Israel would never cede air and sea control to an Islamic terrorist organization sworn to it's destruction.
Hey, all they need is some loaves and fishes and it will be enough to feed everyone. It worked once in the middle east, why not again?

If you and I have a dispute, and I lock you and your family in your house until you capitulate to my demands, controlling all the food, water, medicine, and electricity that goes in, who's fault is it if your kids starve?

But it's quite amusing watching the denial of Hamas's responsibilities in this thread, and the rejection that the Palestinian people had anything to do with Hamas winning a large majority in their Palestinian parliament.
I see you have maintained your mastery of the straw man argument. The palestinians bear responsibility for their actions, as do members of Hamas and the organization as a whole. The Israeli government bears responsibility for their actions.


looks like for some, Palestinians are not humans anymore.
This is another of Birdstrike's specialties. Everything is black and white. Everyone is good or evil.

For example, the Wal-mart employee who was trampled to death on Black Friday was trampled by animals, not people. As best I can tell he is entirely lacking in empathy. Large populations of people do bad things because they are evil, not because they are basically normal people who have been placed in evil circumstances

[Skeptic]

looks like for some, Palestinians are not humans anymore.

Indeed so: for the Hamas leadership, it is perfectly clear that their people are expendable pawns, to be starved or killed at will as long as it helps them with their goal of killing the Jews.

will extrem poverty prevent terrorism or will it increase it.

Considering Hamas' ideology, it will matter not one bit to them whether the Palestinians live in extreme poverty or if each one has a palatial mansion. The goal of destroying Israel will remain. Indeed, every time Israel relaxes the blockade, the sole result is Hamas declaring it proves Israel's weakness, how they defeated the Zionist enemy, etc. Giving Hamas more money will make them more, not less, terroristic.

Besides, again, it is in Hamas' interest to keep the Palestinians in extreme poverty, so that the useful idiots will like them. Any money given to them will merely be taken to buy weapons, and the Palestinians will be just as poor as before.

Finally, the "poverty causes terrorism" or "desperate people do desperate things" claim is simply false. If anything, the opposite is true: terrorists are usually not poor and desperate, but rich and confident -- in particular, confident of their coming victory. Bin Laden isn't poor. Hamas' leadership isn't poor. The 9/11 hijackers weren't poor. Iran isn't poor. And none are desperate - they're all terribly confident of coming victory. (On the other hand, many dirt-poor nations in desperate straits have virtually no terrorism.)

In reality, the "poverty and desperation cause terrorism", like most "root cause" thinking, is merely a rhetorical device to blame the victims of terrorism for being killed by the terrorists (they kept the terrorists "poor and desperate", you see.) The "root causers" blame the victims, the economy, "imperialism", the weather, the forces of history, the latest election results -- anybody and anything except, of course, the terrorists themselves. THEY are as pure as snow, as innocent as lambs.

The "root cause" of terrorism is terrorists, with their genocidal Islamist ideology, not poverty and desperation.

Sorry.

[gdnp]

Indeed so: for the Hamas leadership, it is perfectly clear that their people are expendable pawns, to be starved or killed at will as long as it helps them with their goal of killing the Jews. staying in power.

Not exactly a "fixed it for you", but that's how I would phrase it.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Not exactly a "fixed it for you", but that's how I would phrase it.

According to Skeptic, everyone is out to kill Jews.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Indeed so: for the Hamas leadership, it is perfectly clear that their people are expendable pawns, to be starved or killed at will as long as it helps them with their goal of killing the Jews.



Considering Hamas' ideology, it will matter not one bit to them whether the Palestinians live in extreme poverty or if each one has a palatial mansion. The goal of destroying Israel will remain. Indeed, every time Israel relaxes the blockade, the sole result is Hamas declaring it proves Israel's weakness, how they defeated the Zionist enemy, etc. Giving Hamas more money will make them more, not less, terroristic.

Besides, again, it is in Hamas' interest to keep the Palestinians in extreme poverty, so that the useful idiots will like them. Any money given to them will merely be taken to buy weapons, and the Palestinians will be just as poor as before.

Finally, the "poverty causes terrorism" or "desperate people do desperate things" claim is simply false. If anything, the opposite is true: terrorists are usually not poor and desperate, but rich and confident -- in particular, confident of their coming victory. Bin Laden isn't poor. Hamas' leadership isn't poor. The 9/11 hijackers weren't poor. Iran isn't poor. And none are desperate - they're all terribly confident of coming victory. (On the other hand, many dirt-poor nations in desperate straits have virtually no terrorism.)

In reality, the "poverty and desperation cause terrorism", like most "root cause" thinking, is merely a rhetorical device to blame the victims of terrorism for being killed by the terrorists (they kept the terrorists "poor and desperate", you see.) The "root causers" blame the victims, the economy, "imperialism", the weather, the forces of history, the latest election results -- anybody and anything except, of course, the terrorists themselves. THEY are as pure as snow, as innocent as lambs.

The "root cause" of terrorism is terrorists, with their genocidal Islamist ideology, not poverty and desperation.

Sorry.


You really oughta spend a year living as a Palestinian. And then you'll realize just a little bit how some people feel after living 60 years as a Palestinian.

I think such an experience would enable the emancipation of you as a person.

[DC]

Indeed so: for the Hamas leadership, it is perfectly clear that their people are expendable pawns, to be starved or killed at will as long as it helps them with their goal of killing the Jews.



Considering Hamas' ideology, it will matter not one bit to them whether the Palestinians live in extreme poverty or if each one has a palatial mansion. The goal of destroying Israel will remain. Indeed, every time Israel relaxes the blockade, the sole result is Hamas declaring it proves Israel's weakness, how they defeated the Zionist enemy, etc. Giving Hamas more money will make them more, not less, terroristic.

Besides, again, it is in Hamas' interest to keep the Palestinians in extreme poverty, so that the useful idiots will like them. Any money given to them will merely be taken to buy weapons, and the Palestinians will be just as poor as before.

Finally, the "poverty causes terrorism" or "desperate people do desperate things" claim is simply false. If anything, the opposite is true: terrorists are usually not poor and desperate, but rich and confident -- in particular, confident of their coming victory. Bin Laden isn't poor. Hamas' leadership isn't poor. The 9/11 hijackers weren't poor. Iran isn't poor. And none are desperate - they're all terribly confident of coming victory. (On the other hand, many dirt-poor nations in desperate straits have virtually no terrorism.)

In reality, the "poverty and desperation cause terrorism", like most "root cause" thinking, is merely a rhetorical device to blame the victims of terrorism for being killed by the terrorists (they kept the terrorists "poor and desperate", you see.) The "root causers" blame the victims, the economy, "imperialism", the weather, the forces of history, the latest election results -- anybody and anything except, of course, the terrorists themselves. THEY are as pure as snow, as innocent as lambs.

The "root cause" of terrorism is terrorists, with their genocidal Islamist ideology, not poverty and desperation.

Sorry.

So the only reason for terrorism is actually that the Palestinians hate jews and want to kill all of them?

and the 9/11 highjackers hated our freedom, isnt it?

they are evil and you are good.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

So the only reason for terrorism is actually that the Palestinians hate Jews and want to kill all of them?

Yeah never mind that Palestinians have had their land and livelihoods taken away from them and being persecuted in a manner that would fascist racists proud. But it's not about the apartheid, and being treated like animals by Israel is it? No, it's just that they are all anti-semites who just want to kill Jews. :rolleyes:



and the 9/11 highjackers hated our freedom, isnt it?

they are evil and you are good.

Like I've said may times, It's this 1 bit mindset of black and white, good v. evil. There is only 2 allowable states.

Skeptic is of the same mindset as Neocons and Islamists

[FireGarden]

So feel free to explain why the residents of Gaza decided to elect an internationally recognized terrorist group to power, rather than elect non-terrorists to power.

So you agree with bin Laden: It is okay to punish people for the actions of the governments they support.

If you care to, explain why any party advocating peace with Israel and recognition of its right to exist can't even get enough support to be viable in the first place.

But Hamas is a party advocating peace with Israel. We've had this converstation before. "Even" Fox news reported it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190606,00.html

The Palestinian foreign minister said in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Tuesday that the new Hamas-led government believes its struggle against Israel is just, but it wants to live side by side in peace with its neighbors.

And Meshal backs Palestinian state in '67 borders:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/970807.html

[FireGarden]

You really oughta spend a year living as a Palestinian. And then you'll realize just a little bit how some people feel after living 60 years as a Palestinian.

I think such an experience would enable the emancipation of you as a person.

Maybe he would see things like Ehud Barak:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/946518.html

Defense Minister Ehud Barak should understand this better than anyone. He has certainly read a book or two about history, and he knows that it is impossible to forcefully extinguish a determined and protracted struggle for freedom, like that of the Palestinians. He is also the person who once said in a television interview, courageously and frankly: "If I were a Palestinian, I would join a terror organization." He is the one who is now orchestrating the sowing of death in Gaza.

No doubt he had to back pedal afterwards. But he said it.

[DC]

Indeed so: for the Hamas leadership, it is perfectly clear that their people are expendable pawns, to be starved or killed at will as long as it helps them with their goal of killing the Jews.



Considering Hamas' ideology, it will matter not one bit to them whether the Palestinians live in extreme poverty or if each one has a palatial mansion. The goal of destroying Israel will remain. Indeed, every time Israel relaxes the blockade, the sole result is Hamas declaring it proves Israel's weakness, how they defeated the Zionist enemy, etc. Giving Hamas more money will make them more, not less, terroristic.

Besides, again, it is in Hamas' interest to keep the Palestinians in extreme poverty, so that the useful idiots will like them. Any money given to them will merely be taken to buy weapons, and the Palestinians will be just as poor as before.

Finally, the "poverty causes terrorism" or "desperate people do desperate things" claim is simply false. If anything, the opposite is true: terrorists are usually not poor and desperate, but rich and confident -- in particular, confident of their coming victory. Bin Laden isn't poor. Hamas' leadership isn't poor. The 9/11 hijackers weren't poor. Iran isn't poor. And none are desperate - they're all terribly confident of coming victory. (On the other hand, many dirt-poor nations in desperate straits have virtually no terrorism.)

In reality, the "poverty and desperation cause terrorism", like most "root cause" thinking, is merely a rhetorical device to blame the victims of terrorism for being killed by the terrorists (they kept the terrorists "poor and desperate", you see.) The "root causers" blame the victims, the economy, "imperialism", the weather, the forces of history, the latest election results -- anybody and anything except, of course, the terrorists themselves. THEY are as pure as snow, as innocent as lambs.

The "root cause" of terrorism is terrorists, with their genocidal Islamist ideology, not poverty and desperation.

Sorry.

and it has OC nothing to do with people that came back after 3000 years and wanted back the nation that 3000 years ago belonged to them.

That the Palestinians feel treated unfaily has also nothing to do with it.

would the jews not have come back to the region, the Palestinians would have spread all over the world to hunt down the jews, isnt it?

I just hope we remember the troubles a creation of a state causes when we creat Nations for the Aborigines, Native Americans, Kurds and all the others stateless poeples.

it seems that hate and violence is not something that is created by the circumstances, it is something that is in the genes, isnt it?

[KoihimeNakamura]

So the only reason for terrorism is actually that the Palestinians hate jews and want to kill all of them?

So.. you're saying Hamas = Palestinians?

[KoihimeNakamura]

(Also, look at all the straw fly in this thread)

[The Fool]

Nah, I'm happy letting them lie in the bed they made for themselves.

Maybe you Aussies can invade and fix the place if it bothers you so. Shouldn't be a problem, they're just normal everyday people just like the people in your town I'm sure.

punt....

[DC]

So.. you're saying Hamas = Palestinians?

Hamas members are mostly Palestinians afaik.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I think you're mising my point. Are you saying the following?

"All members of GROUP PALESTINIAN are members of GROUP HAMAS" ?

[DC]

I think you're mising my point. Are you saying the following?

"All members of GROUP PALESTINIAN are members of GROUP HAMAS" ?

No, sure not, i would have alot less troubles with Human right violations in Israel/Palestina if all Palestinians are Hamas supporters.

Im not a hamas fan, in contrary. but i do belive that collective punishment will backfire sooner or later.

ETA: the post of mine you answered to was sarcastic, sorry.

[WildCat]

I know you don't really care, but the Palestinians are human beings. With feelings.
Yeah, these were the guys dancing in the streets after the 9/11 attacks. Such feelings!

Maybe one day your wife or mother might not be able to get medical care and die in pain because some occupying racist power has a checkpoint set up in the middle of Chicago. Let's hope that never happens eh? ;)
I guess that may well happen if the majority of the population decides it's more important to fire rockets at some neighboring state than it is to live in peace.

[WildCat]

So.. you're saying Hamas = Palestinians?
Who do you think elected Hamas to run Gaza? Lizard people?

[WildCat]

So you agree with bin Laden: It is okay to punish people for the actions of the governments they support.
Uh, no. That's not what OBL thinks. OBL thinks it's OK to kill anyone who isn't a Muslim. He's fighting a religious war, not a political one. The political angle is only to fool the useful idiots, and as this thread shows this strategy works quite well.

But Hamas is a party advocating peace with Israel. We've had this converstation before. "Even" Fox news reported it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190606,00.html
Sure they do, just like Hitler wanted to live in peace with Stalin. The news media even reported it! :rolleyes:

And please tell us all FireGarden, what Article 13 of the Hamas Charter (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html) says? I will keep asking you this until you acknowledge it.

And Meshal backs Palestinian state in '67 borders:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/970807.html
Only as a first step for their ongoing and endless war against Israel, as the Hamas Charter (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html) makes clear.

It's amazing how eager you are to make excuses for Hamas and misrepresent and/or ignore what their own founding document says, and which they have not altered to this day. You're being played for a sucker, and you're all too eager to play the part.

[WildCat]

:words:
Hamas is the power in Gaza. Israel is not the occupying power of Gaza any more than the US was the occupying power of Cuba after JFK blockaded it.

The residents of Gaza have nobody but themselves to blame for their predicament. It's funny how when you elect an internationally recognized terrorist group to be your government international laws prevents nations from aiding that government. Of course, those laws were super secret and no one knew ahead of time what the consequences would be... oh, wait! Everyone knew, and they elected said internationally recognized terrorist group to be their government anyway in hopes the world community of useful idiots would bail them out, and as we see in this thread the useful idiots are lobbying hard in the terrorists defense.

[DC]

Hamas is the power in Gaza. Israel is not the occupying power of Gaza any more than the US was the occupying power of Cuba after JFK blockaded it.

The residents of Gaza have nobody but themselves to blame for their predicament. It's funny how when you elect an internationally recognized terrorist group to be your government international laws prevents nations from aiding that government. Of course, those laws were super secret and no one knew ahead of time what the consequences would be... oh, wait! Everyone knew, and they elected said internationally recognized terrorist group to be their government anyway in hopes the world community of useful idiots would bail them out, and as we see in this thread the useful idiots are lobbying hard in the terrorists defense.

oh dear you should inform yourself a little bit.............. really.

[DC]

according to WildCats "thinking" it is ok to hold Civilians responsible for the deeds of their government.

Just hope you dont come across an Iraqi that lost his family do to freedombombs.

we should send all US citizens to den Haag and jail them for Torture and other violations of Human Rights.
they voted twice for Republicans and the Warpresident.

[WildCat]

oh dear you should inform yourself a little bit.............. really.
Educate myself? I'm more aware of what is going on than you appear to be. Can you tell me what Article 13 of the Hamas Charter (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html) says? How about Article 28?

And also pay close attention to Article 29, which states quite clearly how they will use the useful idiots of the world to help them achieve their goal of Israel's destruction.

[WildCat]

according to WildCats "thinking" it is ok to hold Civilians responsible for the deeds of their government.

Just hope you dont come across an Iraqi that lost his family do to freedombombs.

we should send all US citizens to den Haag and jail them for Torture and other violations of Human Rights.
they voted twice for Republicans and the Warpresident.
I see that you have no honest way to make your argument, so you have resorted to misrepresenting me. Cute!

[DC]

Educate myself? I'm more aware of what is going on than you appear to be. Can you tell me what Article 13 of the Hamas Charter (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html) says? How about Article 28?

And also pay close attention to Article 29, which states quite clearly how they will use the useful idiots of the world to help them achieve their goal of Israel's destruction.

your prolly so right.
i was so misstaken

all those checkpoints in Gaza, i thought those are IDF people , but in this forum i learned those are Hamas people. isnt it?

[DC]

I see that you have no honest way to make your argument, so you have resorted to misrepresenting me. Cute!

So you agree that a Blockade that also affect food supply is wrong and a collective punishment?

[WildCat]

your prolly so right.
i was so misstaken

all those jeckpoints in Gaza, i thought those are IDF people , but in this forum i learned those are Hamas people. isnt it?
Any checkpoints in Gaza are certainly run by Hamas, not Israel, as Israel has no troops in Gaza.

Once again you expose your ignorance, good job proving my point!

[WildCat]

So you agree that a Blockade that also affect food supply is wrong and a collective punishment?
So you agree that the sanctions against S. Africa during apartheid were unjust?

And why should Israel allow supplies into a country that is at war with it?

[DC]

So you agree that the sanctions against S. Africa during apartheid were unjust?

And why should Israel allow supplies into a country that is at war with it?

why? somehting you dont care, called Geneva Convention.

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

[WildCat]

Educate myself? I'm more aware of what is going on than you appear to be. Can you tell me what Article 13 of the Hamas Charter (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html) says? How about Article 28?

And also pay close attention to Article 29, which states quite clearly how they will use the useful idiots of the world to help them achieve their goal of Israel's destruction.
DC?

[DC]

DC?

i dont defend Hamas.

what other partys had the Palestinians to vote for?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Er. Looking at the convention?

"But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations with in the State in whose hands they are."

Palestine is not a signatory.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Also WC: No, I'm not, the point is more that .. look

They elected Hamas. Until they try to kick Hamas out they can't expect a lot of sympathy. While I wish there was some pragmatic way of allowing noncombantants to leave or get help, there is no pragmatic way to make sure no terrorist group can take advantage of that.

[DC]

Er. Looking at the convention?

"But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations with in the State in whose hands they are."

Palestine is not a signatory.

they wanted to sign :

Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council "that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto".
On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P

[BirdStrike]

Who controls the borders?

I just love that one. It's such a cop out.

Not just the border with Israel, but the sea coast? Who controls the airspace? Why doesn't Hamas just ship in supplies from outside?

Gosh gdnp, why don't we just walk away from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan too, and just let them ship materials when and where they want to? Sound like a good idea?

Oh, I guess that would be because the Israelis run the place like a prison camp, wouldn't it?

Israel DOESN'T RUN THE PLACE! They left in 2005. Hamas runs Gaza for the 10,000,000,000 time.

Hamas may be acting as the guards, but if they try to leave, they'll be shot.

So Hamas are really "Israeli guards." Got ya.

Hamas control is the equivalent of the prisoners running the prison.

WHAT?!?!? Hamas are now simply prisoners of their own coup?

:dl:

The Israelis let them run the internal affairs because it is easier than getting their own people shot.

Ok. If you claim so. :rolleyes:

The Gaza strip cannot feed itself. Unemployment is more than 50%. They have no fuel except what is shipped in.

Boo Hoo Hoo. I guess the bloody Hamas coup was a bad idea after all.

Who was the occupying power in the Warsaw ghetto?

Now you are Godwinning the thread, bringing up the Warsaw ghetto, because you are now grasping at straws to excuse Hamas's responsibilities.

:dl:

Who controls everything brought legally in or out of Gaza?

HAMAS does! Unfortunately for Hamas they share a common border with the country it is sworn to destroy!

I am an occupant of my house. That does not make me the occupying power.

Ok..Whatever.

The US demanded that the Palestinians hold free and fair elections, and the Israelis hamstrung the Palestinian authority which, combined with their own incompetence and corruption, caused their popularity to plummet. Hamas' election was the direct result.

So Israel is ultimately responsible for who Palestinians voted for now. God does this endless transference ever stop?

So here's a question for you: why do you think a large majority of the Palestinian population voted a terrorist organization in to power in Gaza?

Easy. Because Fatah was unbelievably corrupt. And all other moderate political parties were run out of town by Arafat.

Do you think that current Israeli policies are likely to lead to a more or less radical population?

Back to Israel...yet again. At what point does this transference of responsibility for everything end. Really.

we need to invade palestine and provide them with a couple of alternate governments all of which we approve of....agreed?No...we need to only give them a choice we appprove of. We didn't let the Bathist parties stand in Iraqi elections. We need to do the same thing in Palestine. Invade invite alternate acceptable governments to stand. proclaim free palestine whats wrong with that scenario?Sorry, I didn't notice you had been distracted by the word "election". You choose to hold Palistinians responsible for the terrorists...but not Iraqis. I was just wondering why as the answer "because they elected them" is so shallow I assumed you would be too clever to swallow it....my bad.

The subject in denial may shift culpability for the reality, and attempt transference to another party.

So the only reason for terrorism is actually that the Palestinians hate jews and want to kill all of them?

Ever read the Hamas covenant? Even once? Ever?

Hamas Covenant 1988 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp)

- Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts.

- The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

- There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

- In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.

- In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all.

- Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."

- etc...etc...etc...

But Hamas is a party advocating peace with Israel. We've had this converstation before.

WHAT?!?! :jaw-dropp Ever read the Hamas Covenant? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

all those checkpoints in Gaza, i thought those are IDF people , but in this forum i learned those are Hamas people. isnt it?

Israel left Gaza in 2005 for christ sakes, for the ten trillionth time.

i dont defend Hamas.

what other partys had the Palestinians to vote for?

Lemme sum up the last 3 pages for everyone:

It's obvious that several posters here are adamant that the Palestinian people are not responsible for their votes, they are not responsible for their government, they are not responsible for their actions, and they are not responsible or electing Hamas by a large majority, and Hamas isn't responsible for Gaza, or what happens to the people living their.

I think that sums up gdnp's, Dictator Cheney's, The Fool's, Tin Foil Timothy's and moon1969's posts perfectly.:rolleyes:

Have a nice day!:)

[KoihimeNakamura]

That does not mean anything. They are not a signatory. While I can wish they are, and it'd be nice, the world doesn't really care what I or anyone wishes.

[DC]

I just love that one. It's such a cop out.



Gosh gdnp, why don't we just walk away from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan too, and just let them ship materials when and where they want to? Sound like a good idea?



Israel DOESN'T RUN THE PLACE! They left in 2005. Hamas runs Gaza for the 10,000,000,000 time.



So Hamas are really "Israeli guards." Got ya.



WHAT?!?!? Hamas are now simply prisoners of their own coup?

:dl:



Ok. If you claim so. :rolleyes:



Boo Hoo Hoo. I guess the bloody Hamas coup was a bad idea after all.



Now you are Godwinning the thread, bringing up the Warsaw ghetto, because you are now grasping at straws to excuse Hamas's responsibilities.

:dl:



HAMAS does! Unfortunately for Hamas they share a common border with the country it is sworn to destroy!



Ok..Whatever.



So Israel is ultimately responsible for who Palestinians voted for now. God does this endless transference ever stop?



Easy. Because Fatah was unbelievably corrupt. And all other moderate political parties were run out of town by Arafat.



Back to Israel...yet again. At what point does this transference of responsibility for everything end. Really.



The subject in denial may shift culpability for the reality, and attempt transference to another party.



Ever read the Hamas covenant? Even once? Ever?





WHAT?!?! :jaw-dropp Ever read the Hamas Covenant? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!



Israel left Gaza in 2005 for christ sakes, for the ten trillionth time.



Lemme sum up the last 3 pages for everyone:

It's obvious that several posters here are adamant that the Palestinian people are not responsible for their votes, they are not responsible for their government, they are not responsible for their actions, and they are not responsible or electing Hamas by a large majority, and Hamas isn't responsible for Gaza, or what happens to the people living their.

I think that sums up gdnp's, Dictator Cheney's, The Fool's, Tin Foil Timothy's and moon1969's posts perfectly.:rolleyes:

Have a nice day!:)


Ok. If you claim so. :rolleyes:

[DC]

That does not mean anything. They are not a signatory. While I can wish they are, and it'd be nice, the world doesn't really care what I or anyone wishes.

They wanted to sign.

But maybe someday the UN will find a nice place for the Palestinians and creat a nation there, then they can sign it. when they have a state.

[KoihimeNakamura]

ARRG.

Let me put this simply.

Being a signatory to the Geneva Convnetions is a binary state. They are not. That. Simple.

[DC]

ARRG.

Let me put this simply.

Being a signatory to the Geneva Convnetions is a binary state. They are not. That. Simple.

ah ok, theyn its OK to let them starve.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Oh, the strawman. No. It means the Geneva Conventions don't apply. The morality of Israel's actions is something I'm not discussing.

[Darth Rotor]

according to WildCats "thinking" it is ok to hold Civilians responsible for the deeds of their government.
I don't think you understand the problem of collective activity. The role of the government in Gaza is to do what it can to take care of the needs and concerns of its citizens. A troubling problem for any government is priorities and dealing with other governments. Has Hamas prioritized the struggle with Israel higher than the welfare of its citizens? What deals has Hamas cut on behalf of its people, who elected Hamas? Whether you like it or not, between nations the interactions are aggregated, with an impact of good, bad, or somewhat neutral on those whose government is working, or not, on their behalf.
Just hope you dont come across an Iraqi that lost his family do to freedombombs.
What's a freedombomb? Is it anything like the paylod of stupid you are trying to drop here? Pro Tip: first, arm the weapon, then drop it. You keep missing the target.
we should send all US citizens to den Haag and jail them for Torture and other violations of Human Rights.
And so the truth comes out. Thanks, DC, for being honest to a fault. It is appreciated.
they voted twice for Republicans and the Warpresident.
Yes, America did. If you don't like it, tough crap. You might be amazed to note that a few Americans were disappointed in that outcome as well. Screw them, DC, off to the Hague they go. (You do realize the space limitations, right? ) You are invited to do something about it other than whinge on an internet forum.

What's in your wallet, DC?

DR

[BirdStrike]

Rika, give up. Seriously. What's the point debating.

If these people want to endlessly absolve the Palestinian people from their actions , votes, and responsibilities, then there is absolutely nothing we can post to change that.

Sadly they are not helping things by deflecting responsibility, they are perpetuating the status quo by transferring the responsibility to everyone else except the Palestinian people and Hamas.

Denial of responsibility: This form of denial involves avoiding personal responsibility by blaming, minimizing or justifying. Blaming is a direct statement shifting culpability and may overlap with denial of fact.

[DC]

I don't think you understand the problem of collective activity. The role of the government in Gaza is to do what it can to take care of the needs and concerns of its citizens. A troubling problem for any government is priorities and dealing with other governments. Has Hamas prioritized the struggle with Israel higher than the welfare of its citizens? What deals has Hamas cut on behalf of its people, who elected Hamas? Whether you like it or not, between nations the interactions are aggregated, with an impact of good, bad, or somewhat neutral on those whose government is working, or not, on their behalf.

What's a freedombomb? Is it anything like the paylod of stupid you are trying to drop here? Pro Tip: first, arm the weapon, then drop it. You keep missing the target.

And so the truth comes out. Thanks, DC, for being honest to a fault. It is appreciated.

Yes, America did. If you don't like it, tough crap. You might be amazed to note that a few Americans were disappointed in that outcome as well. Screw them, DC, off to the Hague they go. (You do realize the space limitations, right? ) You are invited to do something about it other than whinge on an internet forum.

What's in your wallet, DC?

DR

ah you seem to dislike the idea of a collective punishment for the US Citizens.

why the diffrent standard for Palestinians? because your terrorists wear Uniforms ?

While it is pointed out that the Blockade is starving civillians, no outcry from the Israel supporters.

They voted for Hamas.

But on 9/11 the outcry was big. And according to the CIA, it was a backfire from US foreign policies over the last decades.

So by the same logic, UBL's collective punishmnet on 9/11 was OK, the US citizens was responsible for those foreign policies, you voted for your government.

[KoihimeNakamura]

All errors in red.

ah you seem to dislike the idea of a collective punishment for the US Citizens.

why the diffrent standard for Palestinians? because your terrorists wear Uniforms ?



They voted for Hamas.


They got what they voted for.

But on 9/11 the outcry was big. And according to the CIA, it was a backfire from US foreign policies over the last decades.

So by the same logic, UBL's collective punishmnet on 9/11 was OK, the US citizens was responsible for those foreign policies, you voted for your government.

The corrections: When we intentionally kill civilians instead of miltary targets, you may have a point.

[WildCat]

But on 9/11 the outcry was big. And according to the CIA, it was a backfire from US foreign policies over the last decades.

So by the same logic, UBL's collective punishmnet on 9/11 was OK, the US citizens was responsible for those foreign policies, you voted for your government.
Wait, are you now admitting that OBL and al Qaeda did 9/11, and not Cheney and Bush? :jaw-dropp

[DC]

Rika, give up. Seriously. What's the point debating.

If these people want to endlessly absolve the Palestinian people from their actions , votes, and responsibilities, then there is absolutely nothing we can post to change that.

Sadly they are not helping things by deflecting responsibility, they are perpetuating the status quo by transferring the responsibility to everyone else except the Palestinian people and Hamas.

you cannot post anything to change my mind, indeed.

you that say the Palestinians should just move on and be happy with what was offered to them.

While you have a complete diffrent standard for Israel. The jews lived in Diaspora, and someday some jews decide to not only go back to the place that belonged to them 3000 years ago, they also want to creat an own state there. No mathere if others live there today.

You would be one of those that oppose to give back half of your country to those that was there before you came there.

[DC]

Wait, are you now admitting that OBL and al Qaeda did 9/11, and not Cheney and Bush? :jaw-dropp

you seem to have missed my farewell post in the 9/11 section.

[WildCat]

you seem to have missed my farewell post in the 9/11 section.
Nope, missed that one. Welcome to the OCT club! :D

[BirdStrike]

you cannot post anything to change my mind, indeed.

Ya. Why cloud the issue with facts.

you that say the Palestinians should just move on and be happy with what was offered to them.

If I have NOTHING and I am offered SOMETHING, who's the dummy now?

You would be one of those that oppose to give back half of your country to those that was there before you came there.

Every single country on earth belonged to some indigenous population at one time. And it was taken, conquered, lost - see: America, South America, Australia to name just a few. So don't throw that load of bull at the wall to see if it sticks.

While it is pointed out that the Blockade is starving civillians, no outcry from the Israel supporters.

Gosh. I wonder why the Israeli government has restricted trade with the territory firing rockets at it's population centers. How dare they! :mad:

But on 9/11 the outcry was big.

So now "9-11" = "trade restrictions by Israel." Got it. :covereyes

See Rika? Pointless.

[Darth Rotor]

ah you seem to dislike the idea of a collective punishment for the US Citizens.
OPEC did it in 1973. We are still here.
why the diffrent standard for Palestinians? because your terrorists wear Uniforms ?
Oxymoron, from a moron. Nice.
While it is pointed out that the Blockade is starving civillians, no outcry from the Israel supporters.
I'll ask you what I ask EJ: are Israel and Hamas at war? Yes or no?
They voted for Hamas.
Yes, which I thought was great. Seriously. The idea of democracy happening simply due to an election needs to be exposed for the fraud that it is. That meme needs to die. On the other hand, elections are an important part of the process, so IMO it was a great first step. That Hamas is an extremist party (as opposed to Fatah or other Pal parties vying for votes) is somewhat like the French Nationalist party getting into power: they could get elected, but France might trip over themselves for a while with that government in place.
But on 9/11 the outcry was big. And according to the CIA, it was a backfire from US foreign policies over the last decades.
I think the term you seek is backlash, and that is a very practical assessment. The US has been having terrorist trouble with Islamists since the 1970's. (I inclue hijacking as part of the picture.) It's an ideological and political struggle. Osama got a blow in for what he sees as his side. His apologists and supporters cheered. I note that among some Pals, the reaction was positive, though I doubt that was the case for all.
So by the same logic, UBL's collective punishmnet on 9/11 was OK, the US citizens was responsible for those foreign policies, you voted for your government.
Collective punishment isn't what he did. You are trying to shoehorn a word into something it isn't. It was very simply an attack on major symbols of the US and those who Osama saw as his side's enemy: America. New York is America's, and to some extent, the world's, financial center. The Pentagon is the alleged center of gravity of US military activity. You might recall why Osama attackd that, with his anger of American troops in his Holy Land.

Clue up. It wasn't a collective punishment. It was nothing so elegant.

Likewise, the Pals have limits on their power. If you look at the early days of America as its own entity, you will see that America got some crappy treatment from both the British and the French (nearly went to war with France in late 1790's) to include the kidnapping/impressment of seamen from American flagged vessels.

Pondering Turtle used to keep this in his sig: Force s:rule10 's on Reason's back. Any presumption you have about equality among nations needs to face that reality.

DR

[DC]

Ya. Why cloud the issue with facts.



If I have NOTHING and I am offered SOMETHING, who's the dummy now?



Every single country on earth belonged to some indigenous population at one time. And it was taken, conquered, lost - see: America, South America, Australia to name just a few. So don't throw that load of bull at the wall to see if it sticks.



Gosh. I wonder why the Israeli government has restricted trade with the territory firing rockets at it's population centers. How dare they! :mad:



So now "9-11" = "trade restrictions by Israel." Got it. :covereyes

See Rika? Pointless.


liar

[Dr Adequate]

So here's a question for you: why do you think a large majority of the Palestinian population voted a terrorist organization in to power in Gaza? Easy. Because Fatah was unbelievably corrupt. And all other moderate political parties were run out of town by Arafat. Er .. if true, doesn't this kind of torpedo your own point?

You can't blame the Palestinians collectively for not voting for moderates if that wasn't an option.

[Darth Rotor]

liar
You are getting what you asked for.
you cannot post anything to change my mind, indeed.
Then what would be the point of this dialogue. Scab picking?
you that say the Palestinians should just move on and be happy with what was offered to them.
He did? Where?
While you have a complete diffrent standard for Israel. The jews lived in Diaspora, and someday some jews decide to not only go back to the place that belonged to them 3000 years ago, they also want to creat an own state there. No mathere if others live there today.
Looks like they pulled it off against some long odds. What you didn't bother to say is that there is no guarantee that it will last.
You would be one of those that oppose to give back half of your country to those that was there before you came there.
Stupid beyond belief. Real life does not work that way. History moves forward most of the time. Or, DC, give half of Switzerland back to the Celts. (Related to the Hallstadt civilization.)
http://www.clannada.org/time_600bce.php
600 BCE The Celtic Tribes of Bituriges, Arverni, Senones, Aedui, Ambarri, Carnutes and Aulerci enter Italy via the Taurine and Duria passes in the Alps. Pliny stated that they were enticed south by reports of a "Gallic citizen of Switzerland named Hellico who had lived in Rome because of his skill as a craftsman". Apparently, the lands occupied by the Celts were becoming overpopulated, and Hellico had brought back wine and dried figs from Rome. These Celtic Tribes decided they liked these things, and headed south.

DR

[DC]

OPEC did it in 1973. We are still here.

Oxymoron, from a moron. Nice.

I'll ask you what I ask EJ: are Israel and Hamas at war? Yes or no?

Yes, which I thought was great. Seriously. The idea of democracy happening simply due to an election needs to be exposed for the fraud that it is, but then, elections are an important part of the process, so IMO it was a great first step. That Hamas is an extremist party is somewhat like the French Nationalist party getting into power: they could get elected, but France might trip over themselves for a while with that government in place.

I think the term you seek is backlash, and that is a very practical assessment. The US has been having terrorist trouble with Islamists since the 1970's. It's a political struggle. So, Osama got a blow in for what he sees as his side. His apologists and supporters cheered. I note that among some Pals, the reaction was positive, though I doubt that was the case for all.

Collective punishment isn't what he did. You are trying to shoehorn a word into something it isn't. It was very simply an attack on a powerful symbol (symbols) of the US and those who Osama saw as his side's enemies: America. New York is America's, and to some extent, the world's, financial center. The Pentagon is the alleged center of gravity of US military activity, and you might recall why Osama attackd that, with his anger of American troops in his Holy Land.

Clue up. It wasn't a collective punishment. It was nothing so elegant.

DR

is it officialy a War? not sure, i see it as a war yes.

how do you think its great Hamas was elected?
i can somehow understand they did it, but i never found it a good idea.
Or is it because now that the majority of the poeple voted for hamas, we can collectively punish them and point the fingers at the election results?

yes sad enough some paelstinians seem to have been happy with the atacks.
but atleast you point out that it was prolly not all of them. i even doubt that it was the majority of them.

Terrorists think the way some do here.
they are those that go an punish large groups of not selected people mainly just based on nationality and punish them / kill them because they feel unfair treated by the victims Government.

the blockade is not hindering Hamas or other terrorists, just like in Iraq, it is the innocent civilians that are punished with such a blockade.


Why did they elect hamas?
i doubt it was becuase Hamas rejects a 2 state solution. i think it was more a protests against fatah. Hamas was also known for theyr social aid inside Palestina (no i dont want to color them a good group) and was also known for theyr fight against corruption.
i think those points was far more important than the Hamas goals.
i think it was a stupid decision.
but what other partys was there to vote for?

[BirdStrike]

Er .. if true, doesn't this kind of torpedo your own point? You can't blame the Palestinians collectively for not voting for moderates if that wasn't an option.

I certainly don't assume that all Palestinians are either A) Hamas supporters, or B) Fatah supporters. There must be many who are neither. So who stopped the Palestinians from forming a third/fourth/fifth - moderate - party to elect? Me? You? Israel? Zionists? Martians? Planet X?

[Darth Rotor]

Er .. if true, doesn't this kind of torpedo your own point?

You can't blame the Palestinians collectively for not voting for moderates if that wasn't an option.
If you or anyone else is interested, there were multiple parties in both 2005 and 2006.

2005

Fatah did well. (http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/eu_election_ass_observ/westbank/final_report.pdf)

2006

The final tabulation shows about 12 parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006#Final_resul ts), with Hamas and Fatah getting the bulk of the votes. Hamas won enough to form a government with, IIRC, a bit of a coalition.

What "a moderate" in the context of the Pals I can't comment on, so I won't.

DR

[WildCat]

Er .. if true, doesn't this kind of torpedo your own point?

You can't blame the Palestinians collectively for not voting for moderates if that wasn't an option.
There's no reason moderates can't have their own party. If there's no moderate party in Gaza it's only because there isn't enough support for them to exist in the first place.

Don't forget, voter turnout in Gaza was nearly 77% (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4645560.stm). Not what you'd expect of a populace dissatisfied with their choices.

[DC]

You are getting what you asked for.

Then what would be the point of this dialogue. Scab picking?

He did? Where?

Looks like they pulled it off against some long odds. What you didn't bother to say is that there is no guarantee that it will last.

Stupid beyond belief. Real life does not work that way. History moves forward most of the time. Or, DC, give half of Switzerland back to the Celts. (Related to the Hallstadt civilization.)
http://www.clannada.org/time_600bce.php


DR

well true normaly History moves forward.
But from the Palestinians it is expected to accept that some moved History backwards.

I dont want to argue that the Jews should not have an own state. thats not the point. i think Israel is there now, and it must stay, and i really hope it will stay there.

But alot people seem to expect from the Palestinians to accept what most of us would not accept in our country.

I am totaly unpatriotic, but i am not sure if i would agree on giving back half of Switzerland to the Celts.

But i see patriotic americans that seem to think it is just normal to give half back to those that was there before you.


I know people that are geting more racist with every percent unemployment is climbng. and that is in one of the richest country in the world, even unemployed have a standard of living that is far above the majority of humans. Still they blame migrants for taking away work.
Our right wing is even so worried because we siwss produce not enough kids, so in some decades our country will be taken over by turks or someone else.

that is in my civilised and well educated country.

Now think back some 80 years. when 100 000's of Jews migrated to Palestina, and more followed, they even created an own state and have one of the strongest armys meanwhile, they get support from all over the world.

I am so not suprised it caused so many troubles, and is still causeing so much trouble.

from outside its so easy to say they should be peacefull or should move on.

and when you grow up in a tent between destroyed houses it is very unlikely you will stick to the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.

[Dr Adequate]

I would have voted for some other party or sat out the election. Unfortunately, that wouldn't have resulted in a special airlift of food and medicine just for you. Indeed, it would have left you in a position where neither Hamas nor Israel would care if you starved. Do you suppose the people picking food out of garbage dumps are Hamas activists? On the contrary (from the article quoted in the OP):

Large numbers of Palestinians are unable to afford the high prices of food being smuggled through the Hamas-controlled tunnels to the Strip from Egypt and last week were confronted with the suspension of UN food and cash distribution as a result of the siege.

That's the trouble with sanctions, the people who deserve them most are the last to feel any effect. If you could make sure that only terrorists ate garbage, that would be great.

The Palestinians, OTOH, came out in droves to vote for an internationally recognized terrorist group in what all outside observers said was a free and fair election. I note that in the last elections Hamas got 44% of the vote (3% more than Fatah) with 74% of the population voting. Oh, wait, I mean 74% of the adult population voting.

[Darth Rotor]

is it officialy a War? not sure, i see it as a war yes.
Yes, it seems to be a form of armed political conflict at the moment, which does not seem to have been blessed as "an official war" by the international community. Can you suggest why that might be?
how do you think its great Hamas was elected?
Because they got the most votes and the election was as open and fair as need be to reflect the will of the Pals who supported various parties. I think that's great. It's the whole spread of representational government at work.

A vote is supposed to be open and fair. As I read it, the EU observers found it fair enough, so whoever got the most votes won. That is good.
i can somehow understand they did it, but i never found it a good idea.
Or is it because now that the majority of the poeple voted for hamas, we can collectively punish them and point the fingers at the election results?No. Please stop with the strawman silliness. It's like Americans: you get the government you deserve, by how you vote or don't vote. I actually laughed with glee when the vote came in, not over the vote, but over the immediate reaction of horror in Washington and Israel over the result. Part of Bush's whole political message included this spread of democracy deal. Well, democracy spread. Quit whinging.
yes sad enough some paelstinians seem to have been happy with the atacks.
but atleast you point out that it was prolly not all of them. i even doubt that it was the majority of them.
Don't know.
Terrorists think the way some do here. they are those that go an punish large groups of not selected people mainly just based on nationality and punish them / kill them because they feel unfair treated by the victims Government.
I don't think you understand why a terrorist act is chosen as a tool.
the blockade is not hindering Hamas or other terrorists, just like in Iraq, it is the innocent civilians that are punished with such a blockade.
Really? Well, if it not hindering Hamas, what's the problem? Surely they aren't incomptent to govern in Gaza. Your bait and switch isn't working. The government has a responsibility to its citizens to look after their interestes. Is Hamas doing that in its relations with other governments, or not?
Why did they elect hamas? i doubt it was becuase Hamas rejects a 2 state solution. i think it was more a protests against fatah.
I think you are on to something there.
Hamas was also known for theyr social aid inside Palestina (no i dont want to color them a good group) and was also known for theyr fight against corruption.
So was the Taliban, good against corruption.
i think those points was far more important than the Hamas goals. i think it was a stupid decision.
Next election, I suppose the people can vote for someone else, then.
but what other partys was there to vote for?
About 11 others. See my reply to Dr A (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4288934#post4288934). But if you want to establish the problem as between Fatah and Hamas, well, you are right back to the same problems America has with its parties. :p It's part of the fun of democracy.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

There's no reason moderates can't have their own party. If there's no moderate party in Gaza it's only because there isn't enough support for them to exist in the first place. Your quarrel is with Birdstrike, not me; it was not I who claimed that the moderates were "run out of town".

You didn't object to him saying it when he actually said it, but for some reason you do object to me saying it when I didn't say it, but merely quoted him saying it. Could this be because he and I drew different conclusions from his claim?

[WildCat]

That's the trouble with sanctions, the people who deserve them most are the last to feel any effect. If you could make sure that only terrorists ate garbage, that would be great.
This is true, but what other options are there?

At least by forcing Hamas to smuggle in food they have less resources to smuggle in weapons.

[WildCat]

Your quarrel is with Birdstrike, not me; it was not I who claimed that the moderates were "run out of town".

You didn't object to him saying it when he actually said it, but for some reason you do object to me saying it when I didn't say it, but merely quoted him saying it. Could this be because he and I drew different conclusions from his claim?
I wasn't aware the ghost of Arafat was keeping the Palestinians from forming moderate political parties.

[DC]

Yes, it seems to be a form of armed political conflict at the moment, which does not seem to have been blessed as "an official war" by the international community. Can you suggest why that might be?

Because they got the most votes and the election was as open and fair as need be to reflect the will of the Pals who supported various parties. I think that's great. It's the whole spread of representational government at work.

A vote is supposed to be open and fair. As I read it, the EU observers found it fair enough, so whoever got the most votes won. That is good.
No. Please stop with the strawman silliness. It's like Americans: you get the government you deserve, by how you vote or don't vote. I actually laughed with glee when the vote came in, not over the vote, but over the immediate reaction of horror in Washington and Israel over the result. Part of Bush's whole political message included this spread of democracy deal. Well, democracy spread. Quit whinging.

Don't know.

I don't think you understand why a terrorist act is chosen as a tool.

Really? Well, if it not hindering Hamas, what's the problem? Surely they aren't incomptent to govern in Gaza. Your bait and switch isn't working. The government has a responsibility to its citizens to look after their interestes. Is Hamas doing that in its relations with other governments, or not?

I think you are on to something there.

So was the Taliban, good against corruption.

Next election, I suppose the people can vote for someone else, then.

About 11 others. See my reply to Dr A. But if you want to establish the problem as between Fatah and Hamas, well, you are right back to the same problems America has with its parties. :p It's part of the fun of democracy.

DR

I think you dont see this conflict onesided.

The government has a responsibility to its citizens to look after their interestes. Is Hamas doing that in its relations with other governments, or not?

I agree on that, they dont do enough in that regard.
But i am unsure what they can do.
They cannot and do not want to stop the violence against Israel.

But still do i consider a blockade that is hindering the supply of food, totaly wrong and imoral.

and as others already pointed out, it does not punish those that the punishment is aimed at. It is punishing the youngest and weakest.
those that can get rockets have no problem geting food.

[Darth Rotor]

I think you dont see this conflict onesided.

The government has a responsibility to its citizens to look after their interestes. Is Hamas doing that in its relations with other governments, or not?

I agree on that, they dont do enough in that regard.
But i am unsure what they can do.
I am not all that sure either. If I had a brilliant idea, I'd mail it to Gaza and Hamas tomorrow, by overnight courier. Gaza isn't that big a place. It is my opinion that if a few people shooting rockets were caught and very publicly arrested and jailed, it would do some good. Maybe not. The Hamas party wanted to be in charge. Roughly, they are. Now they have to act like a government. Part of that is cutting deals with other governments. This includes the Egyptian government, with whom they share a border. Why do they seem to have trouble with this?
They cannot and do not want to stop the violence against Israel.
Ding ding ding. When your country is at war, you get to enjoy all that goes with it. Hamas is leading the country. Hamas is either fighting, or allowing to be fought, a sort of war with Israel. There are Americans who didn't like the Iraq War. America still fought it.
But still do i consider a blockade that is hindering the supply of food, totaly wrong and imoral.
Nope. It is about as moral as this whole idea of international rules and laws allows. The Embargo is consistent with the methods of suasion endorsed by the UN that are short of war. If they are at war, then it is even more moral, as blockade is an internationally recognized method of undertaking a war. DC, this is why I asked. Since you think they are at war, you may not realize that you argue for the morality of the blockade, not against it.
and as others already pointed out, it does not punish those that the punishment is aimed at. It is punishing the youngest and weakest.
those that can get rockets have no problem geting food.
Nations go to war, under the current rules and agreed conventions we have. That is part of the problem, in the cases of extra national organizations, but it is NOT the problem with Hamas. Hamas is the government in Gaza, a discrete political entity which is in conflict with a neighbor. Whether we call it a war or not, see the problems above, doesn't change the fact that war is rough on people involved.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

I certainly don't assume that all Palestinians are either A) Hamas supporters, or B) Fatah supporters. There must be many who are neither. So who stopped the Palestinians from forming a third/fourth/fifth - moderate - party to elect? Me? You? Israel? Zionists? Martians? Planet X?

According to you, it was Arafat, though how he achieved that when he'd been dead since 2004 you did not condescend to explain:

So here's a question for you: why do you think a large majority of the Palestinian population voted a terrorist organization in to power in Gaza? Easy. Because Fatah was unbelievably corrupt. And all other moderate political parties were run out of town by Arafat. See how "easy" it was for you to answer your own question? --- until you realized the implications of this claim, when you started babbling about Martians and Planet X ...

So who stopped the Palestinians from forming a third/fourth/fifth - moderate - party to elect? Me? You? Israel? Zionists? Martians? Planet X? ... thus giving us all the pleasure of watching someone make a strawman attack on his own claim.

Thank you, that was most amusing.

[Dr Adequate]

I wasn't aware the ghost of Arafat was keeping the Palestinians from forming moderate political parties. Yes, I think Birdstrike is wrong too. Unlike you, however, I do not keep pretending that the claim that he made was made by me.

[Dr Adequate]

This is true, but what other options are there? Well, ending the blockade comes to mind: that way, although you're not making terrorists eat garbage, at least you're not making non-terrorists eat garbage.

At least by forcing Hamas to smuggle in food they have less resources to smuggle in weapons. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily true. It occurs to me that as Hamas are not terribly nice people, they may not be running their food-smuggling operation as a non-profit humanitarian venture.

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, I think Birdstrike is wrong too. Unlike you, however, I do not keep pretending that the claim that he made was made by me.

No need to think, Dr A. My response to you included a link to the list of parties that weren't Hamas or Fatah. It's all right there. :cool: Granted, they didn't get a lot of votes, but at least the various Ron Pauls and Ralph Naders of Palestinian Gaza got a few seats in Parliament. It may not be much, but it's a start.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

No need to think, Dr A. Force of habit.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, ending the blockade comes to mind, that way although you're not making terrorists eat garbage, at least you're not making non-terrorists eat garbage.

Unfortunately, this is not necessarily true. It occurs to me that as Hamas are not terribly nice people, they may not necessarily be running their smuggling operation as a non-profit humanitarian venture.
I wonder: when's the next election, where the voters get to choose to throw the bums out? When is the vote of "no confidence?"

Random thought: is it possible that the Israelis think that the embargo will lead to a vote of no confidence? If so, might they be shooting themselves in the foot by giving Hamas an excuse to use "they" as a rallying cry to gin up more support? It's not like that hasn't been done before, eh?

DR

[DC]

I am not all that sure either. If I had a brilliant idea, I'd mail it to Gaza and Hamas tomorrow, by overnight courier. Gaza isn't that big a place. It is my opinion that if a few people shooting rockets were caught and very publicly arrested and jailed, it would do some good. Maybe not. The Hamas party wanted to be in charge. Roughly, they are. Now they have to act like a government. Part of that is cutting deals with other governments. This includes the Egyptian government, with whom they share a border. Why do they seem to have trouble with this?

Ding ding ding. When your country is at war, you get to enjoy all that goes with it. Hamas is leading the country. Hamas is either fighting, or allowing to be fought, a sort of war with Israel. There are Americans who didn't like the Iraq War. America still fought it.

Nope. It is about as moral as this whole idea of international rules and laws allows. The Embargo is consistent with the methods of suasion endorsed by the UN that are short of war. If they are at war, then it is even more moral, as blockade is an internationally recognized method of undertaking a war. DC, this is why I asked. Since you think they are at war, you may not realize that you argue for the morality of the blockade, not against it.

Nations go to war, under the current rules and agreed conventions we have. That is part of the problem, in the cases of extra national organizations, but it is NOT the problem with Hamas. Hamas is the government in Gaza, a discrete political entity which is in conflict with a neighbor. Whether we call it a war or not, see the problems above, doesn't change the fact that war is rough on people involved.

DR

i cant say anything against it i guess :)

good post.

i just see the whole case with alot more emotions.
and War is always the wrong way in my eyes, and i concentrate my view on the helpless that suffer under the war.

[BirdStrike]

See how "easy" it was for you to answer your own question? --- until you realized the implications of this claim, when you started babbling about Martians and Planet X ...If you or anyone else is interested, there were multiple parties in both 2005 and 2006.

DR

Of course there were other parties. That was my point, that no one did stop the Palestinians from forming, or voting for other parties. But more chose Hamas than anyone else. It was a democratic vote. The people spoke.

But Hamas’ political position was well known since the movement was founded 18 years ago. So one can't simply wipe that off the map. Palestinians aren't dumb, they knew what Hamas was all about, why Palestinians didn't look for fresh ideas saddens me greatly regardless of my "babbling." :rolleyes:

[DC]

Why Palestinians didn't look for fresh ideas saddens me greatly regardless of my "babbling."

atleast one point i can agree on.

[WildCat]

Yes, I think Birdstrike is wrong too. Unlike you, however, I do not keep pretending that the claim that he made was made by me.
Never said it was, in fact we may well agree.

[WildCat]

Unfortunately, this is not necessarily true. It occurs to me that as Hamas are not terribly nice people, they may not be running their food-smuggling operation as a non-profit humanitarian venture.
Oh, but they do! It's a big part of the reason they got popular in the first place.

In fact, charitable giving is a very popular way for Islamic extremists to gain popular support throughout the world. Look at the street demonstrations rersulting from Pakistan banning Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist group fronting as a charitable organization which was implicated in the recent Mumbai attacks, for example.

[TriskettheKid]

Oh, but they do! It's a big part of the reason they got popular in the first place.

In fact, charitable giving is a very popular way for Islamic extremists to gain popular support throughout the world. Look at the street demonstrations rersulting from Pakistan banning Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist group fronting as a charitable organization which was implicated in the recent Mumbai attacks, for example.

Not just Islamic extremists, either.

Pablo Escobar, for example, was incredibly "charitable," which was his strategy of gaining support among the masses while he murdered, bombed, and ran his drug empire.

[BirdStrike]

atleast one point i can agree on.

There are a lot of things we can agree upon. :)

But my entire point is Hamas’ political position was well known since the movement was founded over a decade ago. They didn't just drop out of a gumdrop tree and say hey "elect me! we have clean day cares for your kids!" Their position was clearly stated and written down.

Because nearly half a million Palestinians voted for an militant Islamist movement is the reason Gaza is starving.

[Skeptic]

The act of "holding civilians responsible for the deeds of their government" is a.k.a. "war".

Since Hamas is constantly and repeatedly attacking Israel, Israel is at war with the Hamas controlled Gaza strip, not just with the individuals who personally shoot the rockets -- for exactly the same reason that if Canada had its soldiers bombing USA territory daily, then the USA would be at war with Canada itself, not just with those particular soldiers who are doing the bombing.

To say that Israel "has no right to hold civilians responsible for the deeds of their government" sounds nice, but really simply means "Israel has no right to be at war with the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip, despite the fact that it bombs its cities daily", or, in other words, "Israel has no right to self-defense".

[gdnp]

Er .. if true, doesn't this kind of torpedo your own point?

You can't blame the Palestinians collectively for not voting for moderates if that wasn't an option.

Logical consistency is not BirdStrike's forte. Hamas was elected, Hamas took over in a military coup, Hamas is the government of Gaza, Gaza is not a state, Hamas is responsible for Gaza, Hamas does not control its borders or airspace. Just add this one to the list.

Essentially, just replace all his statements with either
1) it is all Hamas' fault or
2) Anyone who tries to place any fraction of the blame on someone other than Hamas wishes to absolve them of any responsibility.

[Tailgater]

those that can get rockets have no problem geting food.

That needs repeating.

[DC]

The act of "holding civilians responsible for the deeds of their government" is a.k.a. "war".

Since Hamas is constantly and repeatedly attacking Israel, Israel is at war with the Hamas controlled Gaza strip, not just with the individuals who personally shoot the rockets -- for exactly the same reason that if Canada had its soldiers bombing USA territory daily, then the USA would be at war with Canada itself, not just with those particular soldiers who are doing the bombing.

To say that Israel "has no right to hold civilians responsible for the deeds of their government" sounds nice, but really simply means "Israel has no right to be at war with the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip, despite the fact that it bombs its cities daily", or, in other words, "Israel has no right to self-defense".

then Hams's actions against Israel, just holds Israelis responsible for the Israeli Government actions?

[Skeptic]

I guess you concede my point.

But, nope. Hamas' actions have absolutely no relation to the blockade or lack thereof. If you'd read the Hamas charter, and the numerous declarations of its leaders, you'll know that its goal is simply to destroy Israel and butcher the Jews no matter what.

Oh, and if you'd listen to Hamas TV, you'll also know that the Jews invented the holocaust, that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are true, that the current economic crisis is due to the Jew-controlled economic system that strangles the world, and a few other interesting tidbits. (So far for the "just anti-Zionist, not antisemitic" nonsense.)

Such people are not bombing Jews because they are "holding them responsible for the Israeli Government's actions". They are bombing Jews because they see them as an evil bacillus who ought to be destroyed to the last baby, wherever they are on the globe, with no mercy -- and once more, I am quoting Hamas' leaders and preachers.

Sounds familiar?

So no, DC, no. Hamas bombs Israelies because its raison d'etre is to destroy Israel and to create another holocaust (oops -- I mean the first holocaust, the other one is a Zionist lie, just ask them.) This is their own words. The blockade, I repeat, has nothing to do with it.

But the fact that you obviously see no moral difference between a group of terrorists hell-bent on genocide randomly bombing cities and the military action of trying to blockade said entity shows you have lost any sort of moral compass you might have had.

That being the case, you hardly have any right to tell people anything about what "morality" or "ethics" says about the situation, in much the same way that someone who believes the earth is flat is hardly in a position to give astronomical advice.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The corrections: When we intentionally kill civilians instead of miltary targets, you may have a point.

Hmmm? It's not tenable to claim that those imposing softening up sanctions on a country like Iraq would not kill people.

There's no difference in intentionally killing civilians and not being bothered about civilians deaths IMO.

[Darth Rotor]

But the fact that you obviously see no moral difference between a group of terrorists hell-bent on genocide randomly bombing cities and the military action of trying to blockade said entity shows you have lost any sort of moral compass you might have had.
Skeptic, as an outsider I find it droll to describe Hamas and its rockets, and a bomb now and again, to be an effective means to the end of running the Israelis out of the neighborhood. What they do is make the price for living there go up, considerably, in that the aggregate rent is paid in blood as well as treasure. The Sunni and Shia of Baghdad have been introduced to that joy for the past five years. I wonder how Israelis look at that: with empathy?

But I wonder at your position: Do Hamas want them all dead, or, do they want them the out of the neighborhoood? In other words, do Hamas attack the Jews of Mexico in an effort to stamp out Jews in general?

As the practical matter of lifting up and moving to "somewhere else" about six million people is not just non trivial, but bordering on the absurd, maybe it amounts to the same thing.

DR

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I

But the fact that you obviously see no moral difference between a group of terrorists hell-bent on genocide randomly bombing cities and the military action of trying to blockade said entity shows you have lost any sort of moral compass you might have had.

That being the case, you hardly have any right to tell people anything about what "morality" or "ethics" says about the situation, in much the same way that someone who believes the earth is flat is hardly in a position to give astronomical advice.

The fact that you seem to have this chip on your shoulder that the world has got it in for 'Jews' clouds your ability to understand or care for the plight of the ordinary Palestinians whose agenda is NOT to kill Jews, but is just to be treated like proper human beings and be able to liev in peace and be able to earn a decent living and have a decent life.

Don't forget that these people lived side by side with Jews for hundreds of years without all this crap until the Zionist movement started it's agenda.


I think the way Israel treats the Palestinians is highly immoral. They way they try to hide it is even worse.

[Darth Rotor]

Don't forget that these people lived side by side with Jews for hundreds of years without all this crap until the Zionist movement started it's agenda.
You can only say that about Palestinian Christians, Tim, now down to about 2% of the population. The various Arabs were living side by side unequally with the Jews and Christians for centuries. I say unequally due to the differences in how the Turkish overlords of the Caliphate treated Muslim and non Muslim in that area, as well as other caprices of the pre Turkish Caliphate for some centuries longer than that.

Toss in a century so of Crusader rule and you get yet another sort of overlord who sets differing standards.

"Yeah, we all underwent suckage together, why can't it suck like it used to, with you as a second class citizen getting extra suckage?"

While I don't blame a Pal for resenting second class status, it's gotta stink, you seem to be rose coloring what went down before that.

Yes, there is some nit picking in that observation, but the second class game isn't new to Israel's arrival as a nation state. (Even that old Zionist, Herzl, had dreams, unrealized, of a multicultural society of equals forging into the future together. That dog didn't hunt for plenty of reasons. )

DR

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, but they do! It's a big part of the reason they got popular in the first place. Unfortunately this seems to mean that they win either way. Either they make money out of it, in which case they get to make money, or they don't, in which case they get to be heros on the "Arab street".

I have thought of a thoroughly practical solution to the entire problem of the Middle East.

I'm gonna get so ******* drunk.

I admit that this won't solve the problem, but nor will anything else, and at least I'll be happy.

[Darth Rotor]

Unfortunately this seems to mean that they win either way. Either they make money out of it, in which case they get to make money, or they don't, in which case they get to be heros on the "Arab street".

I have thought of a thoroughly practical solution to the entire problem of the Middle East.

I'm gonna get so ******* drunk.

I admit that this won't solve the problem, but nor will anything else, and at least I'll be happy.
Can't wait to see what poetry arrives when Dr A does a PWD.

*puts coffee on*

DR

[Dr Adequate]

But, nope. Hamas' actions have absolutely no relation to the blockade or lack thereof. If you'd read the Hamas charter, and the numerous declarations of its leaders, you'll know that its goal is simply to destroy Israel and butcher the Jews no matter what.

[...]

Such people are not bombing Jews because they are "holding them responsible for the Israeli Government's actions". They are bombing Jews because they see them as an evil bacillus who ought to be destroyed to the last baby, wherever they are on the globe, with no mercy -- and once more, I am quoting Hamas' leaders and preachers. Your rhetoric has swamped your argument.

If, as you say, "Hamas' actions have absolutely no relation to the blockade or lack thereof", then the blockade is a pointless act of cruelty.

If the terrorists will commit atrocities whatever Israel does, then why not lift the blockade? If we accept your argument, we must concede that lifting the blockade will bring Israel no benefit, since the terrorists will do exactly the same thing whatever Israel does --- but it will mean that the Palestinians who aren't terrorists will be able to eat without picking through garbage dumps or crawling to the terrorists for food.

[a_unique_person]

Of course there were other parties. That was my point, that no one did stop the Palestinians from forming, or voting for other parties. But more chose Hamas than anyone else. It was a democratic vote. The people spoke.


They came up against the same problem that South Park lampooned, the giant turd, or the (whatever it was). And someone did actively interfere with the Palestinian democratic process, and that person was Arafat. He deliberately ensured that for years only Fatah could win. When the time finally came for an alternative, people jumped at it, not so much because they wanted Hamas, but because they wanted to get rid of Fatah. It's a common event in democratic voting, Governments aren't voted in, they are voted out.

As it is, Hamas is now no more popular than Fatah was, and the Gazans are in despair, there is no-one to vote for.

[Darth Rotor]

As it is, Hamas is now no more popular than Fatah was, and the Gazans are in despair, there is no-one to vote for.

So why aren't they voted out?

[BirdStrike]

Your quarrel is with Birdstrike, not me; it was not I who claimed that the moderates were "run out of town".

You didn't object to him saying it when he actually said it, but for some reason you do object to me saying it when I didn't say it, but merely quoted him saying it. Could this be because he and I drew different conclusions from his claim?

I shall not back down from this claim at all. It is common knowledge that Arafat ran all opposition parties out of town during his reign.

The Palestinian Human Rights Monitor (http://www.phrmg.org/monitor1997/may97-9.htm)

Opposition parties, organizations and activists encounter arbitrary arrests and other forms of harassment.. Some political detainees have reported being mistreated, although they rarely suffer the kind of mistreatment seen in the past, or accorded today to mostly non-political prisoners (see chapter on torture).

Why is the level of repression dropping? Many of our sources, from Dr. Ghassan Al-Khatib from the JMCC to known figures in the PFLP and Hamas agree that the level of political activity by the various organizations is low. This is a consequence of three factors: the continuing confusion and debate within the organizations as a result of their failure to change or derail the Oslo peace process, and the success of President Arafat in weakening the opposition through direct repression and political tactics

The tendency of the PA to arrest hundreds of political activists from the opposition following armed attacks on Israeli targets, together with the more selective imprisonment of political opposition activists in between , has created a climate of mistrust.

That is from the Palestinian Human Rights Monitor, hardly an Israeli apologist.

So I was not wrong Dr Adequate, and I did not create a strawman Dr Adequate. I spoke the truth and ironically it was you who was untruthful.

So who did the Palestinians have to vote for in 2006?

1) Hamas
2) Fatah
3) The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
4) Palestinian National Initiative
5) Third Way
6) The Palestinian Popular Struggle Front
7) Palestinian Arab Front
8) National Coalition for Justice and Democracy
9) Various Independents.

Who won? Not the "National Coalition for Justice and Democracy." That would have been a new way forward, instead a terrorist group won.. who's political position was well known, since the movement was founded over a decade ago.

[Skeptic]

Okay, folks, imagine the blockade is lifted tomorrow.

Will Hamas:

1). Import food and medicine and improve the lives of the Palestinians under its rule?

Or

2). Import as many bigger and better weapons as it can to kill Jews with, as repeatedly stated by its charter and goals and speeches and proclamations and TV shows and ... well, you get the point?

Anybody cares to take a guess?

...thought so.

When Israel was in Gaza, bombing Jewish towns with rockets was just fine according to the useful idiots because of "the occupation". Now that Israel is not in Gaza, bombing Jewish towns with rockets is just fine because of "the blockade". If the blockade is lifted tomorrow and rockets (bigger and better ones, naturally) continue to rain down on Israeli towns -- the only reasonable expected result -- that, too, will be just fine for some other reason.

Too early to guess now what it'll be -- the lack of a Palestinian state, or the State being too small, or Jews still living somewhere between the Jordan river and the sea, or something.

There'll always be an excuse why bombing Jewish towns is just fine, and that any Israeli reaction whatever is illegal, immoral, or fattening.

[ddt]

Reading this thread thus far, I see again why I had decided months ago how pointless it is to engage in these I/P threads, as you're not really going to sway anyone. But it's some sort of addiction, so I can't refrain from putting in my 2 cents too.

Let's first review how the current situation came to be - yes, I haven't followed the news too closely of lately. In June, Hamas and Israel agreed to a 6-month ceasefire. In the begin, there were some infractions and/or alleged infractions of that on both sides, but both sides emphatically stated the ceasefire was still in place - and violence was markedly lower than before. Webfusion had created a thread about that - what happened with that thread? (and what happened with webfusion?)

The article in the OP states that the Israeli blockade was instated about a month ago, and that the ceasefire has been ended only about a week ago. Funny way to blockade someone you have a ceasefire with.

So, what happened in between? Did Hamas fire rockets at Israeli villages/towns? Did Islamic Jihad or other Palestinian factions do so? Did the IDF make incursions into Gaza? (Yes, I'm too lazy to hunt those facts down now - wiki's timeline ends in June).

As to what various people stated in this thread:

Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, no matter if Hamas has de facto control on the ground. Various international organizations and human rights NGOs have that opinion. And there's a very simple reason: Israel is a state, and Hamas or Palestine is not. Someone here argued that Palestine was no signatory to the Geneva Convention, and the reason is simply because Palestine is no state. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Israel wants to absolve itself from the responsibility that the people in Gaza need to get food, they should encourage that the Palestinians declare statehood and only then instate a blockade.

As to the Hamas program: yes I know its charter, I know it's vile. I note, though, that in the parliamentary elections, they ran with an election program which didn't include these things and had a markedly different tone w.r.t. the existence of Israel. Note also the quotes Firegarden posted in this respect from leading Hamas members. How do you account for those remarks? I have no-one seen commenting on them.

I also remark that Hamas declared to cease with suicide bombings when they won the elections and, AFAIK, have abided by that. The suicide bombings carried out since then have predominantly been the work of Fatah or factions within Fatah.

And no, I'm not a fan of Hamas - I abhor any religious extremism. But it is a force in the playing field right now, so you can't just say "we don't talk with you". In fact, not talking with Hamas and at the same time talking with Abbas or Fatah on the pretext of Hamas' violence is hypocritical in light of the previous paragraph. In the end, Northern Ireland also achieved peace by talking with the IRA (well, with its political arm the Sinn Fein - what's the difference?)

[gtc]

Hmmm? It's not tenable to claim that those imposing softening up sanctions on a country like Iraq would not kill people.
.

Softening up sanctions? Are you claiming that the sanctions were imposed in order to soften up the Iraqis prior to an invasion?

[WildCat]

Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, no matter if Hamas has de facto control on the ground. Various international organizations and human rights NGOs have that opinion. And there's a very simple reason: Israel is a state, and Hamas or Palestine is not. Someone here argued that Palestine was no signatory to the Geneva Convention, and the reason is simply because Palestine is no state. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Israel wants to absolve itself from the responsibility that the people in Gaza need to get food, they should encourage that the Palestinians declare statehood and only then instate a blockade.
Legal niceties don't stop the terrorism. Hamastan is a defacto state, whether or not some august body recognizes it as such.

As to the Hamas program: yes I know its charter, I know it's vile. I note, though, that in the parliamentary elections, they ran with an election program which didn't include these things and had a markedly different tone w.r.t. the existence of Israel. Note also the quotes Firegarden posted in this respect from leading Hamas members. How do you account for those remarks? I have no-one seen commenting on them.
It's a common tactic designed only to buy time to rearm. You say you know of the Hamas charter, yet dismiss what it says about peace agreements and the goals of Hamas.

I also remark that Hamas declared to cease with suicide bombings when they won the elections and, AFAIK, have abided by that. The suicide bombings carried out since then have predominantly been the work of Fatah or factions within Fatah.
Well, isn't that special!

And no, I'm not a fan of Hamas - I abhor any religious extremism. But it is a force in the playing field right now, so you can't just say "we don't talk with you". In fact, not talking with Hamas and at the same time talking with Abbas or Fatah on the pretext of Hamas' violence is hypocritical in light of the previous paragraph. In the end, Northern Ireland also achieved peace by talking with the IRA (well, with its political arm the Sinn Fein - what's the difference?)
Not this tired old argument again! The IRA has virtually nothing in common with Islamic extremists. The IRA long ago ceased being a serious revolutionary group and devolved into a crime syndicate. The revolutionary thing was only distracting it from its main business of smuggling and extortion rackets. Oh, and they didn't think that getting killed fighting the British was a ticket to paradise. The IRA is alive and well in its incarnation as a crime syndicate, and is as vile as ever.

Now, you want to negotiate with a genocidal group which has as its goal the extermination of an entire race of people and the complete eradication of their country? What, exactly, is there to negotiate with? That they only kill half the Jews rather than all of them? The Jews be allowed to flee to another country instead of drowning in the sea?

Has any religious fanatic group been successfully negotiated with? These things have ended before, but not by peaceful negotiation. Usually it requires a bloodbath.

[Dr Adequate]

I shall not back down from this claim at all. It is common knowledge that Arafat ran all opposition parties out of town during his reign. So, if you will not back down from your claim that Arafat (who died in 2004) ran the moderates out of town, on what grounds do you blame Palestinians for not voting for moderates in 2006?

If this political opression lingered on in 2006, then you cannot blame the Palestinians for not voting for moderates in 2006. That would be the fault of the ghost of Arafat.

[BirdStrike]

Reading this thread thus far, I see again why I had decided months ago how pointless it is to engage in these I/P threads, as you're not really going to sway anyone. But it's some sort of addiction, so I can't refrain from putting in my 2 cents too.

It is addictive. I have found the heated debate to be really compelling for some reason.

In the end, Northern Ireland also achieved peace by talking with the IRA (well, with its political arm the Sinn Fein - what's the difference?)

But Hamas isn't the IRA. So many people draw that parallel but it is a false one.

The different importance attached to religious beliefs in Hamas's political platform is totally different than the IRAs political platform. The ideology of Hamas is defined in absolutist religious terms, which is not open to influence or change.

While the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms. You'll never "negotiate" the radical Islamic ideology out of Hamas. Never ever.

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, folks, imagine the blockade is lifted tomorrow.

Will Hamas:

1). Import food and medicine and improve the lives of the Palestinians under its rule?

Or

2). Import as many bigger and better weapons as it can to kill Jews with, as repeatedly stated by its charter and goals and speeches and proclamations and TV shows and ... well, you get the point?

Anybody cares to take a guess? Well, according to you it will make no difference whatsoever to Hamas, because, as you have explained to us, "Hamas' actions have absolutely no relation to the blockade or lack thereof".

On the plus side, the totally innocent Palestinians, the ones who have never murdered Jews, the Palestinians who oppose Hamas, the peacemakers, the children who have never voted for anyone --- they will no longer have to scrabble for food in garbage dumps.

That sounds good to me.

Of course, this line of reasoning is predicated on the idea that you are right. I will be the first to admit that you might be wrong.

[Dr Adequate]

It is addictive. I have found the heated debate to be really compelling for some reason.



But Hamas isn't the IRA. So many people draw that parallel but it is a false one.

The different importance attached to religious beliefs in Hamas's political platform is totally different than the IRAs political platform. The ideology of Hamas is defined in absolutist religious terms, which is not open to influence or change.

While the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms. You'll never "negotiate" the radical Islamic ideology out of Hamas. Never ever. Damn, I never knew that the conflict in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with religion.

We could have solved the whole problem decades ago if only you could have explained that to the sectarians who thought it was a war between Protestants and Catholics.

Incidentally, what planet were you living on when all this was happening?

[ddt]

Legal niceties don't stop the terrorism. Hamastan is a defacto state, whether or not some august body recognizes it as such.
It isn't recognized by anybody. And surely Israel wouldn't accept Hamas, or any other Palestinian group, declare statehood. I only have to refer to how even in the Oslo accords, statehood was in the distant future. So when Israel now wants to absolve itself of its responsibility for Gaza, it tries to have its cake and eat it too. Simple as that.


It's a common tactic designed only to buy time to rearm. You say you know of the Hamas charter, yet dismiss what it says about peace agreements and the goals of Hamas.
There are factions within Hamas. Care to link to an analysis of such?

And care to fill in what has transpired in the last six month? With the ceasefire and such? I did invite to fill in that gap for me.

[BirdStrike]

So, if you will not back down from your claim that Arafat (who died in 2004) ran the moderates out of town,

I was just kind enough to link to the "Status of the Political Opposition in Palestine" from the Palestinian Human Rights Monitor, and you still are challenging my claim that Arafat politically repressed opposition parties in Palestine. Why?

...on what grounds do you blame Palestinians for not voting for moderates in 2007?

I don't "blame the Palestinians." And the election was in 2006, not 2007.

Arafat quashed political opposition in the West Bank and Gaza until his death in 2004. So when the election happened in 2006 there was not enough time for a moderate Palestinian party to emerge, and gain a large demographic. Is that really so hard to stomach? Or are you just simply being argumentative?

.If this political opression lingered on in 2007, then you cannot blame the Palestinians for not voting for moderates in 2007. That would be the fault of the ghost of Arafat.

Asked and answered. By the way the election was in 2006. Maybe you should read up on this subject first because you've typed "2007" several times now.

[Dr Adequate]

Never said it was, in fact we may well agree. Then I am at a loss to conjecture why you keep pointing out errors made by Birdstrike as if in answer to my posts.

[BirdStrike]

Damn, I never knew that the conflict in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with religion.

Wow. What a strawman. I never ever said that the conflict in Ireland wasn't about religion.

I know what I just posted Dr Adequate, and it was this.

The different importance attached to religious beliefs in Hamas's political platform is totally different than the IRAs political platform.

Key words, "importance attached to." So please, take your strawman for a walk ok.

[WildCat]

Damn, I never knew that the conflict in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with religion.

We could have solved the whole problem decades ago if only you could have explained that to the sectarians who thought it was a war between Protestants and Catholics.

Incidentally, what planet were you living on when all this was happening?
It wasn't about religion. There was nothing about the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church driving the ideology of the IRA. The Pope, nor any Bishops, Cardinals, etc never sanctioned anything the IRA did. It was just a turf war where religion played a peripheral role, and that was limited only to defining which side you were on.

[Dr Adequate]

I was just kind enough to link to the "Status of the Political Opposition in Palestine" from the Palestinian Human Rights Monitor, and you still are challenging my claim that Arafat politically repressed opposition parties in Palestine. Why?



I don't "blame the Palestinians." And the election was in 2006, not 2007.

Arafat quashed political opposition in the West Bank and Gaza until his death in 2004. So when the election happened in 2006 there was not enough time for a moderate Palestinian party to emerge, and gain a large demographic. Is that really so hard to stomach? Or are you just simply being argumentative? So, does it not then follow that the Palestinian population cannot be held responsible for what was imposed upon them by the terrorist Arafat?

Come on, you cannot have your cake and eat it. If Arafat "quashed" the moderate parties, and "there was not enough time for a moderate Palestinian party to emerge", then the general population of Palestine are not to blame for not voting for that nonexistent moderate party which was quashed by Arafat and did not have enough time to emerge.

You may be correct in suggesting that I made a numerical error of 0.05%. Well done, you must be thrilled.

[WildCat]

It isn't recognized by anybody. And surely Israel wouldn't accept Hamas, or any other Palestinian group, declare statehood. I only have to refer to how even in the Oslo accords, statehood was in the distant future. So when Israel now wants to absolve itself of its responsibility for Gaza, it tries to have its cake and eat it too. Simple as that.
Not so simple.

There are factions within Hamas. Care to link to an analysis of such?
Hamas factions (http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=%2Bhamas+%2Bfactions).

And care to fill in what has transpired in the last six month? With the ceasefire and such? I did invite to fill in that gap for me.
Click here (http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=%2Bhamas+%2Bisrael+%2B%22cease+fire%22).

Sorry, I'm going out to watch the Bears game. :D

[Dr Adequate]

Wow. What a strawman. I never ever said that the conflict in Ireland wasn't about religion. Splendid. Please argue with WildCat, who appears to maintain the contrary.

It wasn't about religion.

But yes, all you said was, and I quote:

the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms.

Funny, isn't it, how the Catholics killed people who were against "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms", and the Protestants killed people who were for "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms".

Still, if you will condescend to explain to us what you mean by "not defined in absolutist religious terms", when speaking either of Northern Ireland or of Palestine, I shall be happy to tell you whether you are right or wrong ... and whether you are hastily backpedaling from an untenable position.

[WildCat]

But yes, all you said was, and I quote:
the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms.


It was? Oh, I see what you're doing.

[ddt]

Not so simple.
Oh yes. To paraphrase Rika: statehood is a binary state. Either you're a state, or you're not.



Click here (http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=%2Bhamas+%2Bisrael+%2B%22cease+fire%22).

Sorry, I'm going out to watch the Bears game. :D

Oh, I see. Yes, I can google too. So it's too much trouble to write a sentence or two on this? I'll have to assume then that this blockade came out of the blue. :rolleyes:

[Dr Adequate]

It was? Oh, I see what you're doing. Cool. This debate is fraught enough without us speaking at cross-purposes.

[gtc]

Oh yes. To paraphrase Rika: statehood is a binary state. Either you're a state, or you're not.

That's not true. Even within the British Isles and Channel Islands, let alone the rest of the world, there are degrees of sovereignty.

[ddt]

That's not true. Even within the British Isles and Channel Islands, let alone the rest of the world, there are degrees of sovereignty.
AFAIK, there are no foreign embassies in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Saint Helier. Nor do Scotland, Wales or Jersey have their own armies, nor are they member of the UN, nor are they signatory to the The Hague or Geneva Conventions. Their "degree of sovereignty" depends entirely on the benevolence of Westminster. Mutatis mutandis, the same holds for Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles.

So I don't see your argument as challenging my claim that statehood is a binary proposition.

[gtc]

AFAIK, there are no foreign embassies in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Saint Helier. Nor do Scotland, Wales or Jersey have their own armies, nor are they member of the UN, nor are they signatory to the The Hague or Geneva Conventions. Their "degree of sovereignty" depends entirely on the benevolence of Westminster. Mutatis mutandis, the same holds for Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles.

So I don't see your argument as challenging my claim that statehood is a binary proposition.

Jersey is a Crown dependency. It isn't part of the UK.

Also consider Vatican City, Andorra, San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein and The Cook Islands. Or this wikipedia article on associated states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_state).

I don't think your binary definition of statehood matches the reality.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Meanwhile Palestinians are still searching for food in rubbish dumps, pregnant Palestinian women are giving birth at dirty checkpoints and desperate Palestinians are firing rockets into Israel.

[gtc]

In particular, having an army or the presence of foreign embassies is not a definition that I have seen used before. Several countries do not maintain military forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces)and opposition to the idea of standing armies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_army) was traditionally strong.

Taiwan is not a member of the UN, Switzerland only joined in 2002 and it took several years for East Timor to join the UN after independence. I can't see how UN membership can be a requirement for statehood.

[gtc]

and desperate Palestinians are firing rockets into Israel.

Do you have evidence that the terrorists who are firing rockets into Israel are desperate?

[gdnp]

Meanwhile Palestinians are still searching for food in rubbish dumps, pregnant Palestinian women are giving birth at dirty checkpoints and desperate Palestinians are firing rockets into Israel.

Because the desperate Palestinians think that by lobbing a few rockets into Israeli fields they can coerce the Israelis into loosening the blockade? :boggled:

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Do you have evidence that the terrorists who are firing rockets into Israel are desperate?

You couldn't make this crap up. :rolleyes:

Yeah, the Palestinian people have a wonderful life, a superb standard of living, they want for nothing, all the modern luxuries.

Yeah they are absolutely fine living in luxury in the Mediterranean Riviera.

I mean they are only firing rockets into Israel because they hate Jews and wan't to murder them l and throw them into the sea.

Even those Palestinians who were forced and scared off their land and out of their homes 60 years ago and don't hate Jews weren't really bothered about it. They understood that the Israeli's deserved the land more than they did.


Are you for real? Or is there something wrong with you? I think the latter?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Splendid. Please argue with WildCat, who appears to maintain the contrary.



But yes, all you said was, and I quote:

the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms.

Funny, isn't it, how the Catholics killed people who were against "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms", and the Protestants killed people who were for "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms".

Still, if you will condescend to explain to us what you mean by "not defined in absolutist religious terms", when speaking either of Northern Ireland or of Palestine, I shall be happy to tell you whether you are right or wrong ... and whether you are hastily backpedaling from an untenable position.


Birdstrike and Wildcat have not only abhorrent views they are way out of their depth in terms of both intellectual capacity and knowledge.

Remember than Birdstrike said that their aren't any Israelis in Gaza to ghettoize the Gazans - see my signature. This is the level you are dealing with. :)

[Skeptic]

Three points.

1). The idea that Hamas' REASON for bombing of cities is "reacting to the blockade" is nonsense. At most that's the current EXCUSE -- much like, every time the Nazis committed some atrocity, their propaganda claimed they were just "reacting" and "retaliating" to the "war crimes" or "terrorism" of the British or Russians or Czech resistance or whomever.

In reality, of course, Hamas bombed Israeli cities before the blockade, and, if it is lifted, will bombed them with renewed vigor after. That's becasue the REASON for the bombing -- as it makes 100% clear in its charter, speeches, TV, etc., etc. -- is Israel's very existence.

2). If a naval blockade of a terrorist entity hell-bent on your destruction by force is somehow illegitimate or a war crime, then obviously no naval blockade is ever legitimate -- and all navy personnel in the western hemisphere, from the civil war to today, are war criminals.

(Perhaps, it seems by the logic of some on this forum, a naval blockade per se is OK, as long as it does not, God forbid, cause those blockaded any serious hardship. We wouldn't want to hurt enemy nations when fighting a war, you know.)

This is absurd, and goes to show that, once more, it isn't the existence of a blockade in itself that raises hackles among the useful idiots, but the fact that it is Israel that does so against the world's "designated victims" -- the Palestinians. It is this holy victim status that must not be violated under any circumstances, no matter how openly and clearly their leadership expresses the goal of wiping the Jews off the map.

3). As for the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" argument -- apart from being a trite, and obviously false, cliche, if you insist on using it to describe Hamas, please use it accurately, so you'll be honest with yourself about whom you are supporting. To wit, say not, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but:

"One man's holocaust denier is another man's freedom fighter"
"One man's believer and spreader of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is a nother man's freedom fighter"
"One man's shooting at point-blank range a family of four, including two children and the pregnant mother, for being Jews, is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's consistent bombing of random civilians for being Jews is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's school curriculum which teaches children the most glorious thing in the world is to grow up to kill Jews is another man's freedom fighting"

That would be a far more accurate description, in this case. But hey, they're glorious freedom fighters, of the world's #1 designated victim group, so, hey, it just HAS to be their victims' fault.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

"One man's holocaust denier is another man's freedom fighter"
"One man's believer and spreader of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is a nother man's freedom fighter"
"One man's shooting at point-blank range a family of four, including two children and the pregnant mother, for being Jews, is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's consistent bombing of random civilians for being Jews is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's school curriculum which teaches children the most glorious thing in the world is to grow up to kill Jews is another man's freedom fighting"

That would be a far more accurate description, in this case. But hey, they're glorious freedom fighters, of the world's #1 designated victim group, so, hey, it just HAS to be their victims' fault.


You really have got a big chip on your shoulder that the world is out to get Jews haven't you?

While no one would deny that racists exist in the world you really do get far too melodramatic and full of spin.

Never mind Hamas. What about the average and ordinary peace loving Palestinian who is simply fed up with being treated less than a dog?

They are not racist, they just want a life back.

And what about the average peace loving Israeli who doesn't agree with treating the Palestinians less than dogs because he is a human being and recognizes Palestinians as fellow human beings.

You could learn from such a person. So get off your Jew victimization soapbox for once and open your eyes that there are other victims in this world.

Why don't you go and live in Gaza for a year and see what it's like.

[DC]

Three points.

1). The idea that Hamas' REASON for bombing of cities is "reacting to the blockade" is nonsense. At most that's the current EXCUSE -- much like, every time the Nazis committed some atrocity, their propaganda claimed they were just "reacting" and "retaliating" to the "war crimes" or "terrorism" of the British or Russians or Czech resistance or whomever.

In reality, of course, Hamas bombed Israeli cities before the blockade, and, if it is lifted, will bombed them with renewed vigor after. That's becasue the REASON for the bombing -- as it makes 100% clear in its charter, speeches, TV, etc., etc. -- is Israel's very existence.

2). If a naval blockade of a terrorist entity hell-bent on your destruction by force is somehow illegitimate or a war crime, then obviously no naval blockade is ever legitimate -- and all navy personnel in the western hemisphere, from the civil war to today, are war criminals.

(Perhaps, it seems by the logic of some on this forum, a naval blockade per se is OK, as long as it does not, God forbid, cause those blockaded any serious hardship. We wouldn't want to hurt enemy nations when fighting a war, you know.)

This is absurd, and goes to show that, once more, it isn't the existence of a blockade in itself that raises hackles among the useful idiots, but the fact that it is Israel that does so against the world's "designated victims" -- the Palestinians. It is this holy victim status that must not be violated under any circumstances, no matter how openly and clearly their leadership expresses the goal of wiping the Jews off the map.

3). As for the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" argument -- apart from being a trite, and obviously false, cliche, if you insist on using it to describe Hamas, please use it accurately, so you'll be honest with yourself about whom you are supporting. To wit, say not, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but:

"One man's holocaust denier is another man's freedom fighter"
"One man's believer and spreader of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is a nother man's freedom fighter"
"One man's shooting at point-blank range a family of four, including two children and the pregnant mother, for being Jews, is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's consistent bombing of random civilians for being Jews is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's school curriculum which teaches children the most glorious thing in the world is to grow up to kill Jews is another man's freedom fighting"

That would be a far more accurate description, in this case. But hey, they're glorious freedom fighters, of the world's #1 designated victim group, so, hey, it just HAS to be their victims' fault.

and you claim i lost my moral compass?
we are actually talking about the innocent people that get punished by the blockade.

you support a punishment, that is not hindering the terrorists from getting rockets, it is hindering children and woman to get food.

I think someone placed a strong magnet next to your compass.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I think someone placed a strong magnet next to your compass.

It's a horrible viewpoint isn't it?

I dunno about magnet. Somebody welded his compass well away from morality.

He's blinkered by his paranoia that the world is anti-semitic.

[a_unique_person]

So why aren't they voted out?

There have to be elections. They have to choose between .....

[DC]

It's a horrible viewpoint isn't it?

I dunno about magnet. Somebody welded his compass well away from morality.

He's blinkered by his paranoia that the world is anti-semitic.

on the other hand. afaik is he living there.
he is one that might be hit oneday by such a rocket. I hope not.

So his conclusions are influenced by real fear and propably also haterd.

I know the same fear and the same hatred can be found on the other side. the fear is even bigger there.

[BirdStrike]

So, does it not then follow that the Palestinian population cannot be held responsible for what was imposed upon them by the terrorist Arafat?

The Palestinians could have voted for Third Way. Headed by a brilliant man Salam Fayyad and a group of respected Palestinian leaders and intellectuals. But they chose Hamas instead.

Come on, you cannot have your cake and eat it. If Arafat "quashed" the moderate parties, and "there was not enough time for a moderate Palestinian party to emerge", then the general population of Palestine are not to blame for not voting for that nonexistent moderate party which was quashed by Arafat and did not have enough time to emerge.

The Palestinians could have voted for Third Way. But the party never had time to build a decent demographic between Arafat's death in November 2004 and the Palestinian elections in January 2006. This new party was only able to form after Arafat died.

You may be correct in suggesting that I made a numerical error of 0.05%. Well done, you must be thrilled.

You didn't make a 0.05%"numerical error." You repeatedly typed 2007 when the elections were 2006. But nice 0.05% backpedal to minimize your ignorance on this subject.

Hey, hear Obama won in 2009? Or was it 2007? 2005? 2010? Gosh I forget. :rolleyes:

Splendid. Please argue with WildCat, who appears to maintain the contrary.

No need to argue with Wildcat. Wildcat isn't posting the election was in 2007, Wildcat isn't repeatedly building blatant strawmen and attributing them to me.

But yes, all you said was, and I quote:

the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms.

See the words "defined in absolutist religious terms." You re-typed them so you must. The core of Hamas's charter is the liberation of all of Palestine and to turn it into an "Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day." The IRA didn't want to liberate Great Britain and to turn it into an "Religious Waqf consecrated for future generations until Judgement Day."

They are different. And you'll have zero luck "negotiating" the Islam out of Hamas. It is non-negotiable.

But you already knew that because you're the expert in this subject, right?

Funny, isn't it, how the Catholics killed people who were against "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms", and the Protestants killed people who were for "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms".

Asked and answered. You just didn't know the answer because your knowledge in this subject is minimal at best.

Still, if you will condescend to explain to us what you mean by "not defined in absolutist religious terms", when speaking either of Northern Ireland or of Palestine, I shall be happy to tell you whether you are right or wrong ... and whether you are hastily backpedaling from an untenable position.

Thanks for being the referee here. But so far you didn't know what year the Palestinian elections were, you've never heard of Salam Fayyad or Third Way, and you have no idea what the Hamas charter reads. So I think you are the least qualified to tell me whether I am right or wrong in this subject.

Have a nice day.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well, let's t ake this thread in a new direction.

Suggest actions Isreal can take that
1) do not affect it's security in a profoundly negative way
2) aid the common person and not Hamas.

[Skeptic]

Let me put it this way. It's WWII. Germany is daily bombing England with bombers and rockets, like Hamas is doing to Israeli towns. Now, is it morally OK for Britian to blockade German ports? Or is it a war crime, since it makes the German population suffer, and not ALL Germans are Nazis or V2 rocket crews?

If you suggest Israel's attempt at blockade is immoral, I fail to see how you can not claim Churchill was a war criminal, too, using the same standards. If, on the other hand, you claim Britian had a right to blockade the Germans ports, I believe one must concede Israel has a similar right.

Why is it that, for the useful idiots on this forum, Israel always has to pass some ridiculously impractical and impossible "test", one no other nation is ever asked to meet (and for very good reasons), before it is allowed (in their view) to fight back against those who would destroy it -- a test that in effect means that it must do nothing?

[DC]

Let me put it this way. It's WWII. Germany is daily bombing England with bombers and rockets, like Hamas is doing to Israeli towns. Now, is it morally OK for Britian to blockade German ports? Or is it a war crime, since it makes the German population suffer, and not ALL Germans are Nazis or V2 rocket crews?

If you suggest Israel's attempt at blockade is immoral, I fail to see how you can not claim Churchill was a war criminal, too, using the same standards. If, on the other hand, you claim Britian had a right to blockade the Germans ports, I believe one must concede Israel has a similar right.

Why is it that, for the useful idiots on this forum, Israel always has to pass some ridiculously impractical and impossible "test", one no other nation is ever asked to meet (and for very good reasons), before it is allowed (in their view) to fight back against those who would destroy it -- a test that in effect means that it must do nothing?

i think Germany would be the better analogy.

when they occupied part of France, would it be OK for the Germans to blockade supply routes to the not occupied part of France?
to stopp the France ressistance?

[gtc]

You couldn't make this crap up. :rolleyes:

Yeah, the Palestinian people have a wonderful life, a superb standard of living, they want for nothing, all the modern luxuries.

You have answered a question about Palestinian terrorists with a statement about what you believe to be the condition of ordinary Palestinians.

Even those Palestinians who were forced and scared off their land and out of their homes 60 years ago and don't hate Jews weren't really bothered about it. They understood that the Israeli's deserved the land more than they did.

You did it again here.

The Islamist terrorists are much smarter than most of those (Westerners and otherwise) who act as their apologists. They are able to appear to be defenders of the faith; charity workers; political activists; freedom fighters; anti-Western and anti-Capitalist rebels and anti-semites depending on the audience. Each sees what they want in the Islamists and each overlooks what they don't want to see.

[gtc]

Let me put it this way. It's WWII. Germany is daily bombing England with bombers and rockets, like Hamas is doing to Israeli towns. Now, is it morally OK for Britian to blockade German ports? Or is it a war crime, since it makes the German population suffer, and not ALL Germans are Nazis or V2 rocket crews?

If you suggest Israel's attempt at blockade is immoral, I fail to see how you can not claim Churchill was a war criminal, too, using the same standards. If, on the other hand, you claim Britian had a right to blockade the Germans ports, I believe one must concede Israel has a similar right.

I doubt they will be able to bring themselves to either concede that you are right or to explain why the situations are different.

[Ivor the Engineer]

How do Hamas want Israel to respond to its attacks?

Does the type of behaviour currently used by Israel toward Hamas/Palestine makes the Palestinian people more or less likely to support Hamas?

What type of behaviour by Israel toward Palestine would make the Palestinian people less likely to support Hamas?

[Ivor the Engineer]

I doubt they will be able to bring themselves to either concede that you are right or to explain why the situations are different.

I was unaware the Palestinian-Israel situation was considered Total war.

[a_unique_person]

The Islamist terrorists are much smarter than most of those (Westerners and otherwise) who act as their apologists. They are able to appear to be defenders of the faith; charity workers; political activists; freedom fighters; anti-Western and anti-Capitalist rebels and anti-semites depending on the audience. Each sees what they want in the Islamists and each overlooks what they don't want to see.

I think you know what they actually think. Perhaps you have some evidence?

[ddt]

Jersey is a Crown dependency. It isn't part of the UK.

Also consider Vatican City, Andorra, San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein and The Cook Islands. Or this wikipedia article on associated states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_state).
Jersey is listed as part of the UK in the list of sovereign states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states) on wiki. The other ones are sovereign states that have delegated part/most of their foreign relations to bigger neighbouring countries.


I don't think your binary definition of statehood matches the reality.


In particular, having an army or the presence of foreign embassies is not a definition that I have seen used before. Several countries do not maintain military forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces)and opposition to the idea of standing armies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_army) was traditionally strong.
Point taken. The wiki article on standing armies misses out on an important aspect: most states couldn't afford financially to have a permanent (large) standing army; mercenaries are costly. Draft was only instituted (in Europe) during/after Napoleon. Opposition against a standing army may have been strong in England and the US, but the French/Spanish/Austrian/Prussian absolutist rulers had absolutely no problem with the idea.


Taiwan is not a member of the UN, Switzerland only joined in 2002 and it took several years for East Timor to join the UN after independence. I can't see how UN membership can be a requirement for statehood.

Is Taiwan a state? See below. Switzerland wasn't a member of the UN, but the UN and virtually all other states in the world recognized it as a state. East Timor was under UN tutelage from 1999 to May 2002, when it declared independence, and it became a UN member in September 2002, so the several years are in fact only 4 months.

I take your point that the characteristics I mentioned are not adequate to establish statehood. So let's see what wiki has to say about state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State):
The word state has both an empirical and a juridical sense; that is, entities can be states either de facto or de jure or both.[3]

Empirically (or de facto), an entity is a state if, as in Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that has a 'monopoly on legitimate violence' over a specific territory.[4] Such an entity imposes its own legal order over a territory, even if it is not legally recognized as a state by other states (e.g., the Somali region of Somaliland).

Juridically (or de jure), an entity is a state in international law if it is recognized as such by other states, even if it does not actually have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force over a territory. Only an entity juridically recognized as a state can enter into many kinds of international agreements and be represented in a variety of legal forums, such as the United Nations.

As we were talking here about the capacity of states to enter into contract with other states or with supranational bodies - signing of Geneva convention, recognition of states, and even war - which means "armed conflict between states" is a kind of contract - we're clearly talking about the juridical definition.

So we're back at the previously mentioned list of sovereign states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states). That consists first of 193 states that are recognized by the UN (which are all member except for Vatican City), and that are recognized by nearly all other states of that list. I think there's no dispute here about those states.

Next are 10 states lacking international recognition. Palestine tops that list with 93 recognitions; Taiwan is also on that list with 23 recognitions. Now, we can indeed argue about that list, so I concede the point that statehood is not a binary proposition.

But whichever entity is not on that list is not a state: no-one, i.e. not a single other state, nor the UN, has recognized it as such.

So to get back to the point where the state dispute originated: some posters claimed statehood for "Hamastan", "Gaza" or how you'd like to call it. That point has been invalidated with this.

[DC]

good point by Ivor.

hungry teenagers that are looking for food in the garbage will become big fans of Israel and hate hamas, or was it the other way around?

like the sign of a young palestinian girls read.
Dont bring Occupation, bring education.

[gtc]

I think you know what they actually think. Perhaps you have some evidence?

I think they believe what they say and believe what they do.

They are vicious anti-semites; willing to do charity work because they think it is the right thing to do and because it helps them to win influence etc; defenders of what they consider to be their faith and so on.

[DC]

I think they believe what they say and believe what they do.

They are vicious anti-semites; willing to do charity work because they think it is the right thing to do and because it helps them to win influence etc; defenders of what they consider to be their faith and so on.

who are they?

[gtc]

Jersey is listed as part of the UK in the list of sovereign states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states) on wiki.

No. It says that they are dependencies of the British Crown; this is different. Elizabeth is the soveriegn for the UK; the Channel Islands; Canada; Australia etc.

http://www.gov.je/ChiefMinister/International+Relations/Profile+of+Jersey.htm


After the separation of the Islands from Normandy and its administration, the local institutions were gradually moulded from time to time very largely on local initiative to meet the changing circumstances until their present constitutions evolved. The evolution did not at any time involve amalgamation with, or subjection to, the government of the United Kingdom and even today the Islands’ link with the United Kingdom and the remainder of the Commonwealth is through the Sovereign as latter-day successor of the Duke of Normandy. The Channel Islands have never been conquered by, or ceded territories to, the UK, nor have they ever been colonies or dominions.
For clarity it is worth pointing out that the term “Great Britain” refers solely to the mainland of England, Scotland and Wales, whereas “United Kingdom” refers to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Neither term includes Guernsey, Jersey or the Isle of Man which are, in fact, part of the British Isles.


The other ones are sovereign states that have delegated part/most of their foreign relations to bigger neighbouring countries.

So having control over your own foreign relations isn't a necessary condition to be a state. As I said, the definition isn't that simple.

Point taken. The wiki article on standing armies misses out on an important aspect: most states couldn't afford financially to have a permanent (large) standing army; mercenaries are costly. Draft was only instituted (in Europe) during/after Napoleon. Opposition against a standing army may have been strong in England and the US, but the French/Spanish/Austrian/Prussian absolutist rulers had absolutely no problem with the idea.

Thanks.

Is Taiwan a state? See below.

For all intents and purposes, I would say yes. The cut off point that I would use isn't exact but I would say that Taiwan is but Palestine isn't, yet.

Switzerland wasn't a member of the UN, but the UN and virtually all other states in the world recognized it as a state.

I think this bit of the wikipedia article is crucial.

This list derives its definition of a sovereign state from Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention) of 1933. According to the Convention, a sovereign state should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. In respect of the last qualification, the role of recognition by other states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition) can often be crucial since it implies acceptance into the international community.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states#cite_note-0) The list includes all states that satisfy these criteria and claim independence; however, the aforementioned qualifications are not absolute and permit variations.


International recognition is one way to tell if a country is a state but a country that doesn't have universal recognition can still be a state.

I would consider a country that lacked international recognition but had self-recognition and at least some of the other trappings of a state could also be considered a state.

But whichever entity is not on that list is not a state: no-one, i.e. not a single other state, nor the UN, has recognized it as such.

What makes Northern Cyprus a 'state' however loosly it is defined but not Jersey?

So to get back to the point where the state dispute originated: some posters claimed statehood for "Hamastan", "Gaza" or how you'd like to call it. That point has been invalidated with this.

I wouldn't suggest they are actual countries but they could one day be countries.

[ddt]

No. It says that they are dependencies of the British Crown; this is different. Elizabeth is the soveriegn for the UK; the Channel Islands; Canada; Australia etc.
Yes, sorry. When I read the history lesson well, is technically Liz II ruler over the Channel Islands in her capacity as Duke of Normandy? :D That could give a hint to why it's not considered a sovereign state, as traditionally dukes were no sovereigns - only emperors, kings and princes (as in Prince of Orange) were. The Duke of Normandy was still a vassal of the King of France, so at least until 1793 nominally, the Channel Islands were part of France if I read this correctly. :) This is all just speculation; it's an interesting case to find out.


So having control over your own foreign relations isn't a necessary condition to be a state. As I said, the definition isn't that simple.
But, say, Monaco could any time rescind the agreement with France about Monaco's foreign relations and set up their own embassies etc.


For all intents and purposes, I would say yes. The cut off point that I would use isn't exact but I would say that Taiwan is but Palestine isn't, yet.
They're the discussion cases, depending on your point of view. One thing that separates Palestine from the others on that list is that there is no clearly defined territory in Palestine's case. That puts them lower on the ladder to statehood than the others. Another thing that separates Palestine from the others, is that the others are breakaways from a state that did accept the population of the breakaway region as citizens, whereas Israel clearly has no intention of wanting the Palestinians of the Territories as Israeli citizens - and that is an argument the other way round. Lastly there's the longevity of the situation - most are recent upstarts, with Taiwan and Northern Cyprus as exceptions.

I'm inclined for now to say none of them are states, but agree with you that Taiwan has a better claim than Palestine.


I think this bit of the wikipedia article is crucial.

International recognition is one way to tell if a country is a state but a country that doesn't have universal recognition can still be a state.

I would consider a country that lacked international recognition but had self-recognition and at least some of the other trappings of a state could also be considered a state.

Then we're in to the two definitions of statehood I quoted before. States that lack international recognition can't become signatories to international treaties - someone mentioned before that Palestine wanted to sign the Geneva Conventions, but couldn't because they weren't recognized by the UN.


What makes Northern Cyprus a 'state' however loosly it is defined but not Jersey?
It has been recognized by its sponsor, Turkey. Jersey hasn't been recognized as a state by even the UK. Nor have the Netherlands Antilles been recognized as a state by the Netherlands - but that case is more clear-cut: the Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of three countries (Netherlands, Aruba, Netherlands Antilles) with their own legislations and parliaments, much like the devolution in the UK.


I wouldn't suggest they are actual countries but they could one day be countries.
Oh, let's be careful not to interchange the words country and state!

But the status of the Channel Islands now intrigues me. Are there more such cases?

[Skeptic]

I doubt they will be able to bring themselves to either concede that you are right or to explain why the situations are different.

The real reason the usual gang here consider the situation to be different is either that instead of England we have the Jewish state (which, being Jewish, has no right for self-defense), or else that instead of Germany we have Palestinians (which, being the designated victim group du jour, get a free pass on anything, including openly attempting genocide), or a combination of both.

[gdnp]

2). If a naval blockade of a terrorist entity hell-bent on your destruction by force is somehow illegitimate or a war crime, then obviously no naval blockade is ever legitimate -- and all navy personnel in the western hemisphere, from the civil war to today, are war criminals.

(Perhaps, it seems by the logic of some on this forum, a naval blockade per se is OK, as long as it does not, God forbid, cause those blockaded any serious hardship. We wouldn't want to hurt enemy nations when fighting a war, you know.)

This is absurd, and goes to show that, once more, it isn't the existence of a blockade in itself that raises hackles among the useful idiots, but the fact that it is Israel that does so against the world's "designated victims" -- the Palestinians. It is this holy victim status that must not be violated under any circumstances, no matter how openly and clearly their leadership expresses the goal of wiping the Jews off the map.

I suggest you review the fallacy of false dilemma. A blockade need not be absolute. Take for example the US "blockade" of Cuba, as noted in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#quarantine):

In customary international practice, a blockade stops all shipments into the blockaded area, and is considered an act of war. Quarantines are more selective, as, in this case, being limited to offensive weapons. While the original U.S. Navy paper did use the term "blockade,"

This initially was to involve a naval blockade against offensive weapons within the framework of the Organization of American States and the Rio Treaty. Such a blockade might be expanded to cover all types of goods and air transport. The action was to be backed up by surveillance of Cuba. CNO's scenario was followed closely in later implementing the quarantine.

Admiral Anderson's paper, by differentiating between the quarantine of offensive weapons versus all materials, indicated that a classic blockade was not the original intention. Since it would take place in international waters, President John F. Kennedy obtained the approval of the OAS for military action under the hemispheric defense provisions of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (i.e., the Rio Treaty).


I do not think I have heard anyone here claim that Israel does not have a legitimate right to prevent offensive weapons into Gaza. The question here is whether the restrictions on food, fuel, and electricity are legitimate.

[FireGarden]

Reading this thread thus far, I see again why I had decided months ago how pointless it is to engage in these I/P threads, as you're not really going to sway anyone. But it's some sort of addiction, so I can't refrain from putting in my 2 cents too.

Let's first review how the current situation came to be - yes, I haven't followed the news too closely of lately. In June, Hamas and Israel agreed to a 6-month ceasefire. In the begin, there were some infractions and/or alleged infractions of that on both sides, but both sides emphatically stated the ceasefire was still in place - and violence was markedly lower than before. Webfusion had created a thread about that - what happened with that thread? (and what happened with webfusion?)

The article in the OP states that the Israeli blockade was instated about a month ago, and that the ceasefire has been ended only about a week ago. Funny way to blockade someone you have a ceasefire with.

So, what happened in between? Did Hamas fire rockets at Israeli villages/towns? Did Islamic Jihad or other Palestinian factions do so? Did the IDF make incursions into Gaza? (Yes, I'm too lazy to hunt those facts down now - wiki's timeline ends in June).

As to what various people stated in this thread:

Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, no matter if Hamas has de facto control on the ground. Various international organizations and human rights NGOs have that opinion. And there's a very simple reason: Israel is a state, and Hamas or Palestine is not. Someone here argued that Palestine was no signatory to the Geneva Convention, and the reason is simply because Palestine is no state. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Israel wants to absolve itself from the responsibility that the people in Gaza need to get food, they should encourage that the Palestinians declare statehood and only then instate a blockade.

As to the Hamas program: yes I know its charter, I know it's vile. I note, though, that in the parliamentary elections, they ran with an election program which didn't include these things and had a markedly different tone w.r.t. the existence of Israel. Note also the quotes Firegarden posted in this respect from leading Hamas members. How do you account for those remarks? I have no-one seen commenting on them.

I also remark that Hamas declared to cease with suicide bombings when they won the elections and, AFAIK, have abided by that. The suicide bombings carried out since then have predominantly been the work of Fatah or factions within Fatah.

And no, I'm not a fan of Hamas - I abhor any religious extremism. But it is a force in the playing field right now, so you can't just say "we don't talk with you". In fact, not talking with Hamas and at the same time talking with Abbas or Fatah on the pretext of Hamas' violence is hypocritical in light of the previous paragraph. In the end, Northern Ireland also achieved peace by talking with the IRA (well, with its political arm the Sinn Fein - what's the difference?)

Thank you for posting.
My blood is boiling too hot for me to say anything at the moment.

An older story, from the 14th of Dec:
Palestinians eating grass
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5338014.ece

Abu Amra and her unemployed husband have seven daughters and a son. Their tiny breeze-block house has had no furniture since they burnt the last cupboard for heat.

[...] Israel controls the borders and allows in humanitarian supplies only sporadically. Families had electricity for six hours a day last week. Cooking gas was available only through the illegal tunnels that run into Egypt, and by last week had jumped in price from 80 shekels per canister (£14) to 380 shekels (£66).


40% of Gazans want to leave:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1046126.html

But I guess they have nowhere to go. And no way to get there.

[BirdStrike]

The question here is whether the restrictions on food, fuel, and electricity are legitimate.

I shall show you why. I'll spoon feed it to you since you have neglected to find out why.

Associated Press (http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3504227,00.html) - Policemen from Hamas halted 14 trucks filled with food and medicine at a checkpoint after it crossed an Israeli checkpoint into Gaza on Thursday, said employees of the Palestinian Red Crescent, who declined to be named, fearing reprisals from ruling group Hamas.

JULY 2008 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/952322.html) - At least 10 trucks with humanitarian aid sent to the Gaza Strip by the Jordanian Red Crescent Society were confiscated by Hamas police shortly after the trucks entered the territory on Thursday evening, according to aid officials in Jerusalem. Eight trucks had food products and another two had medicines. They were reportedly taken to Hamas-run ministries.

FEB 2008 - (http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL0983878) Jordan said on Saturday the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas has confiscated a convoy of humanitarian aid sent to people living under an Israeli blockade in the Gaza Strip. Minister of State for Information Affairs Nasser Joudeh told the state news agency Petra that Hamas members on Thursday seized 16 trucks carrying emergency supplies into Gaza and diverted the cargo to a warehouse run by the Islamist group.

APR 2008 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870521477&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) - The head of the Palestinian Authority's gas agency confirmed Tuesday that Hamas gunmen had raided the Palestinian side of the Nahal Oz fuel terminal, stealing at least 60,000 liters of fuel meant for the Gaza power station in order to fill their own vehicles.

DEC 2007 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847271823&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) - The Palestinian Authority Health Ministry on Thursday accused Hamas of robbing fuel stockpiles in two hospitals in the Gaza Strip. A statement published by the ministry claimed that Hamas had been stealing fuel from the European Hospital in the Strip for use in the group's operations.

Hamas steals the aid meant for the non-combatants in Gaza to run it's organization. That organization fires rockets at Israel, remember?

Israel doesn't want to HELP Hamas to continue to operate. Why the ^%#% that has to be spoon fed to posters here exposes the gross level of ignorance in this matter.
:hb:

[FireGarden]

I do not think I have heard anyone here claim that Israel does not have a legitimate right to prevent offensive weapons into Gaza. The question here is whether the restrictions on food, fuel, and electricity are legitimate.

Especially when Israel is still responsible for the people of Gaza. As acknowldged when Hamas broke through the border with Egypt:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/947858.html

A top Egyptian official said Thursday that Egypt's border with Gaza would go back to normal, and strongly rejected the idea - floated by Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai - that Israel might relinquish all responsibility for the troubled Gaza Strip.

Israel has not relinquished responsibility for Palastinians in Gaza. No matter who pretends they have. They tried to in Jan 2008. The idea didn't fly.

[gdnp]

Hamas steals the aid meant for the non-combatants in Gaza to run it's organization. That organization fires rockets at Israel, remember?

I see. Some of the food and fuel is stolen by Hamas, and the solution is to punish the victims who had their food and fuel stolen by cutting off all shipments. Tell me, how is the stolen food threatening Israel? Is Hamas using it to power their rockets or as projectiles?

By using your logic, if someone reports an unauthorized withdrawal from their bank account we should protect them by taking the rest of their money. :boggled:

Israel doesn't want to HELP Hamas to continue to operate. Why the ^%#% that has to be spoon fed to posters here exposes their gross ignorance in this matter.Are you here because you like the adrenaline rush from screaming iprofanity via your computer keyboard or because you actually wish to contribute an intellectual discussion? You implied the former earlier. If I am mistaken and it is the latter, you may wish to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, which only leads to a further polarization of the discussion.

[BirdStrike]

I see. Some of the food and fuel is stolen by Hamas, and the solution is to punish the victims who had their food and fuel stolen by cutting off all shipments.

If a terrorist organization is stealing aid is it your contention that aid should continue to flow unchecked? Yes or no.

Tell me, how is the stolen food threatening Israel? Is Hamas using it to power their rockets or as projectiles?

You have left the realm of reality. Really you have. You are bending over backwards and twisting into a pretzel to cling to a ill-informed position.

By using your logic, if someone reports an unauthorized withdrawal from their bank account we should protect them by taking the rest of their money. :boggled:

OMFG. What a load.

If someone reports an unauthorized withdrawal from their bank account IT IS CLOSED BY THE BANK to STOP THE THEIVES from withdrawing more money. The bank does not take the rest of the money away from the person holding the compromised bank account.

If someone reports an unauthorized use from their credit card IT IS CANCELED BY THE BANK to STOP THE THEIVES from USING THE CREDIT CARD. The bank does not take the credit card away from the person holding the compromised credit card.

edited to add: There is no mechanism to stop Hamas from stealing aid for it's operations, that is why Israel restricts aid to Gaza. Period. End of story.

Are you here because you like the adrenaline rush from screaming iprofanity via your computer keyboard or because you actually wish to contribute an intellectual discussion?

I have used ZERO profanity-laden personal attacks in this thread. The fact that you created a strawman whereby I am using profanity exposes the utter weakness of your position.

You implied the former earlier. If I am mistaken and it is the latter, you may wish to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, which only leads to a further polarization of the discussion.

What polarizes this discussion is people - see: you - behaving as experts on this subject. Then, when they - see: you -are confronted with documentation and facts that are linked and cited, they - see: you - continue to flame the person who was kind enough to provide documented evidence.

That is why there is polarization of this discussion. You are no different than a 9-11 truther.

[ddt]

Hamas steals the aid meant for the non-combatants in Gaza to run it's organization.
The aid meant for the population in Gaza is a matter between the (UN) organizations giving that aid and the population, and Israel has nothing to do with it.


That organization fires rockets at Israel, remember?
So, care to elaborate how that went the last 6 months? You know, when there was a ceasefire? I asked before, and no-one cared to answer.

Daniel Levy, Israeli advisor at the Geneva talks, writes in Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035732.html):
To recap: For most of the six months of the cease-fire, relative quiet prevailed, and life returned to near-normal for the residents of Sderot and environs (though not for Gazans, who remained under siege). Then on November 4, an Israeli operation sparked a new round of dangerous, if controlled, violence - characterized by occasional Israeli strikes and incursions, matched by Palestinian rockets and shooting across the border.
So, it did have the effect that rocket firing at Sderot et al. (nearly) stopped.

Maybe the argument that Levy makes that Israel in the end spites its own nose with its Gaza policy has more impression on you:
Gaza is not yet Somalia. But the warning signs are there. There was nothing inevitable about the disintegration of Somalia. It happened as a result of misguided policies - notably of the current Bush administration and Ethiopia - which should not be repeated by Israel in Gaza.

Israel must do more than extend a cease-fire - Israel must allow Gaza to breathe, to reconnect to the world, to live on more than international handouts, and to reclaim its dignity. Could Hamas benefit in the short term? Perhaps. But worse things can happen - and not just to the Palestinians. For Israel, too, much is at stake. It's no fun to live in a Somalia, and no picnic either being its next-door neighbor.

[DC]

when people get very hungry, when people have no home and no future.
things will get very ugly and bloody.

remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Morality is in the top, starving people are at the bottom of that hierarchy.

[BirdStrike]

when people get very hungry, when people have no home and no future. things will get very ugly and bloody.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/29/israel (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/29/israel)

The Islamist party Hamas has won control of seven out of 10 councils in the Gaza Strip, dealing a crushing blow to the Fatah party of the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas. Voters rejected Fatah's corrupt image and endorsed Hamas for its opposition to Israel and for providing welfare, schools and nurseries to the impoverished residents of the territory.

The people spoke. Democracy in action. Now the Gazans and Hamas have to take responsibility for their choices. I don't think I am being unreasonable.

The aid meant for the population in Gaza is a matter between the (UN) organizations giving that aid and the population, and Israel has nothing to do with it.

It does involve Israel when the UN is powerless to stop aid thefts by forces hostile to Israel. The only alternative to hindering these supply lines is _____________________?

So, care to elaborate how that went the last 6 months? You know, when there was a ceasefire? I asked before, and no-one cared to answer.So, it did have the effect that rocket firing at Sderot et al. (nearly) stopped.

Maybe the argument that Levy makes that Israel in the end spites its own nose with its Gaza policy has more impression on you.

I wish Hamas had never taken Gaza in a bloody coup. But now that that is a reality, and the UN is powerless to protect it's aid shipments in Gaza, what is the alternative to disrupting the supply lines to forces hostile to the citizens of Sderot?

[FireGarden]

Daniel Levy, Israeli advisor at the Geneva talks, writes in Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035732.html):

I think you meant this link:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048067.html

[Pardalis]

Hamas steals the aid meant for the non-combatants in Gaza to run it's organization.

I wonder if the average Palestinian is aware of this?

[Dr Adequate]

Three points.

1). The idea that Hamas' REASON for bombing of cities is "reacting to the blockade" is nonsense. At most that's the current EXCUSE -- much like, every time the Nazis committed some atrocity, their propaganda claimed they were just "reacting" and "retaliating" to the "war crimes" or "terrorism" of the British or Russians or Czech resistance or whomever.

In reality, of course, Hamas bombed Israeli cities before the blockade .... Once more your rhetoric has swamped your argument, and once more I'll ask you my question.

If the same terrorist atrocities against Israelis will be committed whether or not there's a blockade, then what's the point of the blockade? According to your own testimony, the blockade doesn't affect terrorism. However, it does mean that innocent Palestinians have to scrabble for food in garbage dumps.

For year after year after year, ever since I joined these forums, I've seen you and your pals come up with the same argument over and over, which I might paraphrase as follows:

In practical terms, it doesn't matter whether we do good or evil, since the terrorists will commit terrorist acts whatever we do. Therefore, we might as well do what is evil.

But if this is really the case, then we might as well do what is good. If the terrorists are just destined to be terrorists, if there is no "root cause" except that they're a bunch of Jew-hating scum and there is nothing we can do about it, then we might as well keep our hands clean rather than steeping our hands in innocent blood.

[Darth Rotor]

There have to be elections. They have to choose between .....
Of course.

When are the next elections scheduled?

Are more elections scheduled?

Why is there no vote of "no confidence" if Hamas is doing such a crap job?

About Hamas stealing aid, embargo, etc: if Hamas doesn't give a crap about its own people, how much less of a crap will they give about anyone else, to include the people across the border who they apparently don't mind shelling, rocketing, or seeing shelled and rocketed?

That's a disturbing thought. Maybe Hamas are doing a crap job.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

I shall show you why. I'll spoon feed it to you since you have neglected to find out why.

Hamas steals the aid meant for the non-combatants in Gaza to run it's organization. That organization fires rockets at Israel, remember?

Israel doesn't want to HELP Hamas to continue to operate. Why the ^%#% that has to be spoon fed to posters here exposes the gross level of ignorance in this matter.
:hb: But still, if Israel maintains the blockade, and Hamas is the only organization capable of breaching it, then this brings power, money, and kudos to Hamas.

[Pardalis]

If a terrorist organization is stealing aid is it your contention that aid should continue to flow unchecked? Yes or no.

The aid meant for the population in Gaza is a matter between the (UN) organizations giving that aid and the population, and Israel has nothing to do with it.

You didnt answer the question.

Hamas is acting like a bunch of thugs, not like a government who cares for its people.

[BirdStrike]

But still, if Israel maintains the blockade, and Hamas is the only organization capable of breaching it, then this brings power, money, and kudos to Hamas.

In the short run ya. IMHO eventually Gazans will realize that Hamas is more interested in the jihad to liberate Palestine than the mundane day to day responsibilities as a functioning government.

I feel people forget Hamas is a threat to the Palestinian Authority as well. They murdered over a hundred of Abbas's men to take Gaza. And until they are defeated or disarmed the can be no Palestinian state.

[DC]

the Palestinian Children are not the enemy of Israel.
the enemy of Israel is not really punished by the blockade.
the children are.

and im totaly convinced that they will not blame Hamas for the hunger, they will blame Israel.

no mather if that is rational or not.

the Palestinians dont have the Information we have. i doubt they know that hamas is stealing food.

Israel is shooting its own foot. creating new hatred.

and prolly the ordinary Israeli will have to suffer under the new hatred and violence.

Aslong the conditions in Gaza stay as they are, nothing will improve.
the situation is creating humans that see no future and have nothing to loose, humans that are not well educated. Ideal new fodder for suicide bombers.

[gdnp]

If a terrorist organization is stealing aid is it your contention that aid should continue to flow unchecked? Yes or no.If a terrorist organization is stealing an undetermined portion of food aid and then presumably selling it or distributing it to the population in need and the alternatives are to continue supplying food aid or having the population who had their aid stolen scrounge in garbage dumps for food, should the food aid be cut off? Yes or no?



You have left the realm of reality. Really you have. You are bending over backwards and twisting into a pretzel to cling to a ill-informed position.Unresponsive ranting aside, You have yet to define how Hamas stealing some undetermined fraction of food aid is a threat to Israel.



OMFG. What a load.

If someone reports an unauthorized withdrawal from their bank account IT IS CLOSED BY THE BANK to STOP THE THEIVES from withdrawing more money. The bank does not take the rest of the money away from the person holding the compromised bank account.And yet, when the Gaza residents have a portion of their food aid stolen my Hamas, your solution is to cut off food aid. Go figure.

If someone reports an unauthorized use from their credit card IT IS CANCELED BY THE BANK to STOP THE THEIVES from USING THE CREDIT CARD. The bank does not take the credit card away from the person holding the compromised credit card.Well, generally they cancel the card and reissue it so that the VICTIM of the thieves can continue purchasing. Do you really not see the problem with your analogy?

edited to add: There is no mechanism to stop Hamas from stealing aid for it's operations, that is why Israel restricts aid to Gaza. Period. End of story.Does the punishment fit the crime?

Are you here because you like the adrenaline rush from screaming iprofanity via your computer keyboard or because you actually wish to contribute an intellectual discussion?

I have used ZERO profanity-laden personal attacks in this thread. The fact that you created a strawman whereby I am using profanity exposes the utter weakness of your position.I did not accuse you of making profanity-laden personal attacks, thus ironically making your "defense" a straw man. I accused you of "screaming iprofanity via your keyboard" in response to this statement:

Why the ^%#% that has to be spoon fed to posters here exposes the gross level of ignorance in this matter.

I will let others decide whether or not it is a personal attack to accuse someone of a "gross level of ignorance"

What polarizes this discussion is people - see: you - behaving as experts on this subject. Then, when they - see: you -are confronted with documentation and facts that are linked and cited, they - see: you - continue to flame the person who was kind enough to provide documented evidence. I have never claimed to be an expert on the subject. I have not, to my knowledge, denied the validity of any of the factual information that you have posted. I have, however, challenged your interpretation of those facts, in particular regarding the legitimacy of Israeli actions, as well as the underlying logic (or lack thereof) in your arguments.

That is why there is polarization of this discussion. You are no different than a 9-11 truther.Really? please elaborate. Or is this just another gratuitous ad hominem insult?

[Pardalis]

and im totaly convinced that they will not blame Hamas for the hunger, they will blame Israel.

no mather if that is rational or not.

the Palestinians dont have the Information we have. i doubt they know that hamas is stealing food.


Are you saying that Hamas is stealing food to fuel hatred against Israel, DC?

[Pardalis]

If a terrorist organization is stealing an undetermined portion of food aid and then presumably selling it or distributing it to the population in need and the alternatives are to continue supplying food aid or having the population who had their aid stolen scrounge in garbage dumps for food, should the food aid be cut off? Yes or no?

How do you know they are redistributing the stolen food to the population? Why steal it in the first place then?

So Hamas is back at being a terrorist organization now? :confused:

[Darth Rotor]

But still, if Israel maintains the blockade, and Hamas is the only organization capable of breaching it, then this brings power, money, and kudos to Hamas.
Iraq, oil for food, all over again. Just without the oil.

Dr A, are Israel and Hamas at war?

[ddt]

I think you meant this link:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048067.html

Thanks for the correction. I got both links from the blog of Anja Meulenbelt (http://anjameulenbelt.sp.nl/weblog/), a Dutch feminist, member of the Upper House for the Socialist Party, and married to a Gazan. Some articles are in English.

[BirdStrike]

If a terrorist organization is stealing an undetermined portion of food aid...

I just "determined" it. With multiple links above. Over 25+ trucks, and 60,000 liters of fuel in less than six months. And those were the ones that were reported in the international media. I can guarantee there were more unreported in the international media.

...and then presumably selling it or distributing it to the population in need...

So Hamas is stealing aid from the UN shipments to "presumably selling it or distributing it?" Does that make any sense?

Unresponsive ranting aside, You have yet to define how Hamas stealing some undetermined fraction of food aid is a threat to Israel.

This "undetermined fraction of food aid" :rolleyes: ...allows Hamas to clothe, feed and fuel it's military forces and their allies first.

And yet, when the Gaza residents have a portion of their food aid stolen my Hamas, your solution is to cut off food aid.

My solution is to restrict supplies to a hostile military force who is stealing the supplies. Especially when that hostile military force stealing the supplies is a threat to a) Israel and, b) additionally the Palestinian Authority.

I really feel like I am debating a 9-11 truther...

[gdnp]

The Islamist party Hamas has won control of seven out of 10 councils in the Gaza Strip, dealing a crushing blow to the Fatah party of the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas. Voters rejected Fatah's corrupt image and endorsed Hamas for its opposition to Israel and for providing welfare, schools and nurseries to the impoverished residents of the territory.


The people spoke. Democracy in action. Now the Gazans and Hamas have to take responsibility for their choices. I don't
Let's see. Since Fatah is also in opposition to Israel, I would assume that the people voted for Hamas because of the way they differed from Fatah, not because of how they were similar.

Now, how did they differ? Oh, I guess that would be because Fatah was corrupt and because Hamas provided welfare, schools, and nurseries.

Yeah, those evil Gazans. The people spoke. They voted for welfare, schools, and nurseries over corruption. They need to be punished. :rolleyes:

[DC]

Are you saying that Hamas is stealing food to fuel hatred against Israel, DC?

No actually I didnt say that, i didnt consider it that way.
no mather if they do it to fuel hatred (i doubt they think so far) or for any other reason.
the Palestinian kids do not know. they know they are hungry, and they know there is a blockade from Israel. Im sure they will blame Israel.

[gdnp]

How do you know they are redistributing the stolen food to the population? Why steal it in the first place then?

I suspect someone is eating it, and the Hamas members are not eating it all themselves. Hamas is either distributing it themselves to gain the loyalty of the population or selling it to raise funds, either for their own operations or personal enrichment. I have heard stories of food aid given by the US to Africa being rebagged to conceal US generosity. I would not be surprised if Hamas was doing the same here. They want the people to be grateful to them, not to the UN. Does anyone have more definitive information on what was done?

[Darth Rotor]

No actually I didnt say that, i didnt consider it that way.
no mather if they do it to fuel hatred (i doubt they think so far) or for any other reason.
the Palestinian kids do not know. they know they are hungry, and they know there is a blockade from Israel. Im sure they will blame Israel.
Hmm.

Kids in Gaza are hungry. Sucks.

Kids in Israel die from rocket attacks, or get injured. Sucks.

Plenty of suckage to go around, don't you think? Which form of suckage do you think is more fair? Is either fair? How do you put pressure on the Pals in Gaza to stop the rocket attacks?

Seriously?

How Do You Do That?

Assumption: neither you, nor I, nor the Israeli government, nor Hamas, nor anyone in Gaza wants to see the IDF tanks roll into Gaza to stamp out rocket attacks. That would be suckage3

DR

[Tailgater]

Why don't you go and live in Gaza for a year and see what it's like.

Do you live there? You like to use that line. Whats good for the goose and all. I know he's spent alot of time in that part of the world. Have you left your moms basement?


http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=hamas+rockets+at+israel&FORM=MSNH11

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=hamas+suicide+bombers+in+israel&go=&form=QBRE

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/184588,hamas-seizes-convoy-of-jordanian-aid-to-palestinians-official-says.html

The aid that goes in now doesn't even get to the general public, it goes to people who support Hamas.

"We have been astonished over this behaviour, because the trucks carried humanitarian aid for the entire Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip regardless of their political affiliations," he said.

He appealed to Hamas leaders to approve the Palestinian Red Crescent Society as the sole body recognized on an international level for distributing Jordanian and other Arab aid which was being dispatched through Jordanian territory.

Abbadi said the seized aid was the 235th batch of Jordanian and Arab aid to the Gaza Strip worth a total of 54 million dinars (76 million dollars).

He urged Hamas leaders to "stop these practices because the Hashemite Organization is planning the dispatch of more aid from Arab, Islamic and friendly countries to the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip."


remember when?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/feb/03/20060203-111448-6001r/

Leading Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar rejected Western and Egyptian pressure for his movement to recognize Israel and renounce violence.

"The Western nations can take their aid and get lost," he told The Washington Times just before leaving his home for Friday prayers.

Mr. Zahar had invited The Times to visit his four-story home, recently rebuilt after his somewhat more modest dwelling was destroyed by Israeli jets more than two years ago, to discuss how his movement would respond to Western demands.

"Israel is not a legitimate entity, and no amount of pressure can force us to recognize its right to exist," he said.

This ones kind of interesting. Hamas really cares about the people. Especially ones that support other parties.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2007/06/19/world/20070620_GAZA_FEATURE.html#

[Pardalis]

I suspect someone is eating it, and the Hamas members are not eating it all themselves. Hamas is either distributing it themselves to gain the loyalty of the population or selling it to raise funds, either for their own operations or personal enrichment. I have heard stories of food aid given by the US to Africa being rebagged to conceal US generosity. I would not be surprised if Hamas was doing the same here. They want the people to be grateful to them, not to the UN.

But in the links it is said that it's food from the Red Crescent that is being stolen, food from their fellow Muslim. Militias stealing food for themselves is an old practice.

[BirdStrike]

Let's see. Since Yeah, those evil Gazans. The people spoke. They voted for welfare, schools, and nurseries over corruption. They need to be punished. :rolleyes:

Hamas didn't just drop out of a gumdrop tree one day with welfare, schools, and nurseries. Hamas has been around for over a decade, sending suicide bombers. When Hamas did end up building schools, and nurseries after years of terrorism, it did so to manipulate people to support their military actions.

For nearly a decade, Hamas's political platform has been no secret. With Hamas there is no acceptance of coexistence, there is no support for the idea of two states living side by side in peace. Hamas has an exclusive demand, based on fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts.

Don't you get it? It's not about kids, it's about Islamic fundamentalism.

2008 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,411601,00.html) - The ruling Hamas movement on Wednesday replaced hundreds of striking teachers with its own supporters, purging Gaza's education system of its political rivals and deepening its control of the coastal territory.

[DC]

Hmm.

Kids in Gaza are hungry. Sucks.

Kids in Israel die from rocket attacks, or get injured. Sucks.

Plenty of suckage to go around, don't you think? Which form of suckage do you think is more fair? Is either fair? How do you put pressure on the Pals in Gaza to stop the rocket attacks?

Seriously?

How Do You Do That?

Assumption: neither you, nor I, nor the Israeli government, nor Hamas, nor anyone in Gaza wants to see the IDF tanks roll into Gaza to stamp out rocket attacks. That would be suckage3

DR

the blockade didnt stop the rocket atacks, so the blockade is not working as intended, it has a very nasty and dangerous side effect.
creating hatred.

I? i would support the Palestinian people with all i can get to get theyr Infrastructure back working and would help them building up theyr state, so they can atleast have a better live. I would hope that this will help reducing the Hatred against Israel and will turn them away from Hamas.
I also would call in International peacekeepers on both side of the borders.
I would support the Israeli / Palestinian peace organisations.

I would try to get Israel of the course of an eye for an eye etc.

but thats wishfull thinking.

I think stopping the blockade expect for weappons would be a nice thing.

[gdnp]

I just "determined" it. With multiple links above. Over 25+ trucks, and 60,000 liters of fuel in less than six months. And those were the ones that were reported in the international media.
Really? what fraction of the food aid was this? 100%? 25%? 10%? 1%? I can guarantee there were more unreported in the international media.Any your personal guarantee carries what weight?

So Hamas is stealing aid from the UN shipments to "presumably selling it or distributing it?" Does that make any sense?Yes. Hamas takes the stuff and then distributes it themselves, thus making the population dependent on them rather than the UN.



This "undetermined fraction of food aid" :rolleyes: ...allows Hamas to clothe, feed and fuel it's military forces and their allies first.No doubt. You still have not answered what fraction was stolen and what fraction that was stolen goes to their military forces and what fraction goes to the general poplulation. If, for example, they stole 10% of the aid and used 2% for their forces and distributed 8% to the poor, would this justify cutting off 100% of the aid?

My solution is to restrict supplies to a hostile military force who is stealing the supplies. Especially when that hostile military force stealing the supplies is a threat to a) Israel and, b) additionally the Palestinian Authority.Your solution is not being questioned. You have made it quite clear. What is being questioned is whether the collateral damage caused by your solution justifies the benefits. You believe it does. I believe it does not. Why this causes you to foam at the mouth is still not clear to me.

I really feel like I am debating a 9-11 truther...Why? do you lose those arguments as well?

[Skeptic]

(Sigh)

You know, folks, on second thought, perhaps the reason for such invective against Israel from the "progressive" camp has nothing to do with antisemitism after all. Perhaps it is just the same old, same old sinking feeling progressives get when it turns out that, once again, the latest "Freedom fighters" and "revolutionaries" and "armed resistance groups" they had so devoutely supported turn out to be murderous thugs -- much like Stalin, and Mao, and Ho Chi Minh, and the Khmer Rouge, and Castro, and Che Guevara, and... well, you get the point.

The ol' "we were taken for a ride AGAIN - will we never learn?" feeling must be rather hard to swallow. So the usual "they didn't do it, if you say they did it's propaganda against the freedom fighters, if it's not propaganda you can't prove they did it, if you can prove they did it they were forced to it by the evil Israelies (or the USA, or the 'Capitalist-Imperialist west', or whatever), and anyway, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" embarrased (and angry) defense against undeniable proof of the Palestinian terrorist organizations' genocidal intention kicks in.

We've seen this before from Stalin to Castro to Ho Chi Minh. Why should Hamas and the PLO be treated any differently?

[WildCat]

There have to be elections. They have to choose between .....
There were 11 parties in the election: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/PAelections.html

One of them was:

7. The National Coalition for Justice and Democracy (Wa'ad)

Led by Eyad el-Sarraj, this party advocates human rights and enforcing the rule of law. This is a small party with 12 candidates running on the ballot.


Now you'd think, with most (if not all) of the 10 other parties being composed of terrorists that this party could walk into power, what with the support of the peace-loving Palestinians Tin Foil Timothy and others claim make up the majority.

And yet, this party got a Cynthia McKinney percentage of the votes despite the other 10 parties splitting the violent jihadi vote.

Either there was massive, undetected election fraud in 2006, or the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are in fact violent terrorist supporting thugs who want war with Israel, or there is some other reason the only party advocating peace and the rule of law has such miniscule support.

What do you think it is a_u_p?

[DC]

PLO and Hamas are NOT terrorists

what forum was you reading?

most here agree that Hamas is a terroristic organisation.
but it was claimed that the Palestinian kids are not terrorists.

but after reading your posts, im sure you see them as not grown up terrorists...

Are you sure that not you are the usefull idiot used by your Government to defend an occupation and unjust blockade against civilians.

[Darth Rotor]

the blockade didnt stop the rocket atacks, so the blockade is not working as intended
yet. Blockades take a long time to work, when they work at all.

Flash back to WW II, late 1943.

Churchill: "Damnit, the blockade isn't working, Jerry is still fighting, call it off."
, it has a very nasty and dangerous side effect.
creating hatred.
That was already there. See rocket attacks and Hamas charter . . .
I also would call in International peacekeepers on both side of the borders.
I would support the Israeli / Palestinian peace organisations.
OK, so UN and peace enforcement? Peace at the point of a gun? Or, Peacekeeping, which is peace kept after peace is agreed? Wait, they don't agree yet ...
I would try to get Israel of the course of an eye for an eye etc.
Can Hamas also stop with an eye for an eye, DC?
but thats wishfull thinking.
Perhaps.
I think stopping the blockade expect for weappons would be a nice thing.
Weapons inspections are a lot more manpower intensive than mere general embargo. (See Red Sea and PG MISO ops for twelve years, NATO and WEU arms embargo in Adriatic for five as good examples of the resources required.)

Maybe a multinational flotilla?

Who do you trust? Who does Israel trust? Who do the Pals trust?

Oil for food, for fifty, Alex. :p

[ddt]

I just "determined" it. With multiple links above. Over 25+ trucks, and 60,000 liters of fuel in less than six months. And those were the ones that were reported in the international media.
Really? what fraction of the food aid was this? 100%? 25%? 10%? 1%? Any your personal guarantee carries what weight?
Very good question. :D Let's see how much fuel is needed for the power plant alone: (from Electronic Intifada (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10010.shtml)):
"The power station requires a minimum of 400,000 liters of industrial fuel per day to produce 65MW," according to OCHA's al-Bayari,
So 60,000 liters fuel stolen in six months time is a drop in a bucket. You need some more links to get to something substantial, BirdStrike! :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

This links states it's half the fuel:

The amount confiscated is approximately 400,000 of the 800,000 liters of diesel transferred to Gaza weekly and intended for uses such as generators, hospitals, water pumps and sewage pumps. In contrast, Hamas uses this fuel for militant purposes.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974043.html

[ddt]

So, care to elaborate how that went the last 6 months? You know, when there was a ceasefire? I asked before, and no-one cared to answer.

So, it did have the effect that rocket firing at Sderot et al. (nearly) stopped.

I note that BirdStrike, in his response, coloured the word "nearly" red. I have, however, yet to see the first link to a newspaper article that there have been rockets fired at Sderot and surroundings. BirdStrike, WildCat, care to give a link?

[DC]

yet. Blockades take a long time to work, when they work at all.

Flash back to WW II, late 1943.

Churchill: "Damnit, the blockade isn't working, Jerry is still fighting, call it off."

That was already there. See rocket attacks and Hamas charter . . .

sure, and the blockade is doing nada to reduce it, in contrary it is creating even more.


OK, so UN and peace enforcement? Peace at the point of a gun? Or, Peacekeeping, which is peace kept after peace is agreed? Wait, they don't agree yet ...
yes first one need an agreement, and that will be very hard.
In contrary to many many arabs, i accept that Israel has a right to be there.

yes i think it was one of the most stupid ideas humans ever had, to create Israel. but now its there and removing it is not an option. atleast for me.

and thats why they should try to win the hearts of the people.
and eye for an eye will not do that.
you have to offer something, but you have to be carefull so you dont support the wrong ones. those that will use your help against you.

to find an agreement with hamas seems impossible to me.
but find an agreement with the majority of Palestinians, i am sure it can be done. But BOTH sides have to move from their position.


Can Hamas also stop with an eye for an eye, DC?

if it only was the eyes......
i doubt it. But i belive it is posible to turn the people away from Hamas or even against them (which isnt a good ides, will end very bloody)


Perhaps.


Weapons inspections are a lot more manpower intensive than mere general embargo. (See Red Sea and PG MISO ops for twelve years, NATO and WEU arms embargo in Adriatic for five as good examples of the resources required.)

I think it should be worth the effort, it will save lives on both sides and not only on one side and create more hatred on the other side.

Maybe a multinational flotilla?

Who do you trust? Who does Israel trust? Who do the Pals trust?

Oil for food, for fifty, Alex. :p

Jamaica Defence Force for example :D

na an international group.
they should take controll over both, Israel and Palestina.

[Tailgater]

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Hamas+holding+civilian+population+in+Gaza+hostage+ 7-May-2008.htm

The London Independent reported on 24 April on the artificial crisis caused by Hamas, which even caused the UN to suspend food aid to 650,000 refugees in the Gaza Strip after running out of fuel for its delivery vehicles. An emergency tanker sent to the Nahal Oz terminal to collect fuel was turned back by demonstrators, and was forced to return empty. EU condemns Hamas actions which lead to further suffering of the Palestinian population

On 24 April, the Presidency of the EU stated that Hamas activities were obstructing and even preventing humanitarian work by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Hamas nationalizing fuel supplies meant for the civilian population

In another report, Nissim Keinan of Israel's Second Radio channel reported on 4 May that Hamas was in fact holding the civilian population hostage. He stated that Hamas has nationalized all the fuel supplies transferred by Israel for the civilian population, and for operation of the electricity plant, and is using it solely for its own purposes. In addition, food sent by the donor countries is allocated in accordance with Hamas instructions. Of the thousands of tons of grains, food and fuel that were transferred, none was able to reach the civilian population.

[BirdStrike]

I note that BirdStrike, in his response, coloured the word "nearly" red. I have, however, yet to see the first link to a newspaper article that there have been rockets fired at Sderot and surroundings. BirdStrike, WildCat, care to give a link?

You're kidding right? You have to be. Seriously. Rockets came a couple days after the ceasefire was called and haven't stopped since.

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3335271,00.html

This was the seventh rocket to be fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip, since the ceasefire was declared, just one week ago. Israel continues to restrain itself and is not responding to the shooting, and this has indeed been one of the more quiet weeks to pass on the southern residents in the recent months.

JUNE 2008 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126616) - Terrorists in Hamas-run Gaza violated the six-day-old ceasefire by firing a mortar shell and at least two Kassam rockets into Israel on Monday night and Tuesday. Several people were lightly hurt, including one with shrapnel injuries. A number of children were treated for shock.

I refuse to provide you with any more evidence until you actually make an effort to inform yourself about this subject.

This links states it's half the fuel:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974043.html

Personally I give up Pardalis. It's like debating a truthers who shall claim that your "undetermined fraction of of fuel..."
:hb: :D

[Tailgater]

na an international group.
they should take controll over both, Israel and Palestina.

While that sounds good on the surface, I think we just end up with another Afgan/Iraq mess.

[BirdStrike]

This is from the BBC. Hardly an "Israeli apologist."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6958021.stm

The EU cut off funding last Thursday because of concerns over plans by the Islamist group Hamas, which controls Gaza, to tax electricity bills.


That is how "F" up Hamas is. That is how much they love the people. After taking over in a bloody coup they were going to tax them for fuel in Gaza! Is that messed up or what?

Earlier, the former Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya of Hamas, said the decision to withdraw funding amounted to collective punishment for the people of Gaza.

That popular sound bite sound familiar anyone?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/08/2008525134239119304.html

Riyad al-Malki, information minister in the Ramallah-based government set up by the Mahmoud Abbbas, the president, after he dismissed the Hamas-majority cabinet, said Hamas was to blame for the blackouts.

"We warned for weeks that Gaza would fall into darkness if Hamas does not stop occupying the electricity company and does not stop holding on to millions of shekels that they collected from the people of Gaza," he said.


And guess what. Hamas did anyways.

[Darth Rotor]

yes first one need an agreement
Forty one years and counting ...
Jamaica Defence Force for example :D

na an international group.
they should take controll over both, Israel and Palestina.
Take control?

That isn't a peaceful act, and the UN doesn't have the back bone to do that "take control" thing. The JDF isn't stupid enough to sign up for that mission without a previous agreement. Back you go to square zero.

As I asked The Fool: how do you get that agreement? Better minds than yours and mine have wrestled over that and come up with bloody eff all.

More on this peacekeeping thing: see the pre NATO difficulties in Bosnia for examples of how badly screwed up a peacekeeping effort with crap for C2, crap for operational concept, and no agreement turns out.

Badly, that's how, no matter how hard the multinational troops from over a dozen countries worked at getting it right. They were set up by crappy operational concept from the top down. The peace to keep wasn't there.

DR

[WildCat]

There were 11 parties in the election: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/PAelections.html

One of them was:

7. The National Coalition for Justice and Democracy (Wa'ad)

Led by Eyad el-Sarraj, this party advocates human rights and enforcing the rule of law. This is a small party with 12 candidates running on the ballot.

Now you'd think, with most (if not all) of the 10 other parties being composed of terrorists that this party could walk into power, what with the support of the peace-loving Palestinians Tin Foil Timothy and others claim make up the majority.


And yet, this party got a Cynthia McKinney percentage of the votes despite the other 10 parties splitting the violent jihadi vote.



Either there was massive, undetected election fraud in 2006, or the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are in fact violent terrorist supporting thugs who want war with Israel, or there is some other reason the only party advocating peace and the rule of law has such miniscule support.



What do you think it is a_u_p?


Anyone here who claims that most Palestinians are peace-loving and don't support terrorism want to take a crack at explaining this?

[Tailgater]

Anyone here who claims that most Palestinians are peace-loving and don't support terrorism want to take a crack at explaining this?

Fear of the opposing party would be my guess. If you fear Fatah, you're going to vote Hamas and vice-versa. Most likely, the peace party would be killed by both parties to reassume control.

You won't vote Lib if you are voting out of fear against the Dems. You vote Rep even if you really can't stand either party. My best shot at a weak analogy.

ETA: I just think the mindset of people there is hard to understand. They are told alot of lies and have to make survival decisions when it comes to that particular issue.