Israel cuts off contact with the terrorist government of the proto-Palestinian state

[Darat]

Israel cuts off contact with the terrorist government of the proto-Palestinian state:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4729000.stm

Strange quote from the sidebar caught my attention:

This is a faulty decision, and the Israelis must reconsider their decision. It will only increase hatred"

The fairly and freely elected government says "we want to kill each and every one of you" to the citizens of Israel and somehow Israel should be concerned that [u[Israel[/u] nay cause more hatred?

I am glad this decision has been made and I hope other countries - especially the countries of the EU and the USA - also adopt this stance.

[webfusion]

The caretaker interim government of Israel is in a strange position --- in the campaign now underway for the Knesset, nobody (especially Ehud Olmert) wants to be seen as 'soft' and that leads to the current situation of hard-line positions being adopted by Olmert right now. He has several powerful political foes to his Right (Bibi Netanyahu, Effi Eitam) that would make hay while the sun shines if he was to make ANY overtures at this junction towards Hamas.

Hamas will slowly get up to speed, and slowly alter their maximalist demands, and slowly reduce the armed conflict to a point where the Israelis can take baby-steps in their direction this summer.

Until then, there isn't any point whatsoever to be evaluating Israeli political actions (or lack therof) and also no point in worrying about Hamas 'destroying Israel' --- the dynamics are in flux, and there is a lot of maneuvering ahead.

Let's just sit back and watch, rather than jump in now with all kinds of "SPOT" criticisms or cheering. Let's consider the long-term and not the immediate pronouncements, which are obviously influenced by factional election considerations right now.

[zenith-nadir]

You are starting to learn Darat that the Palestinians are never really responsible for "increasing hatred". Everything they do is simply the knee-jerk reaction to what Israel does, which is a liberal cop out IMO. The moral and intellectual hypocrisy of this view is well-known to me.

The disengagement from Gaza and the resulting chaos between Palestinians in Gaza is an indication that not everything in the Middle East conflict is Israel's doing. All it would really take is the end of terrorism by Palestinian terror groups to assure the Israelis that negotiations actually mean something. It is at this point in the debate that the useful idiots will morally equate suicide bombing civilians in restaurants or on buses going to work with building subdivisions in the West Bank - the moral and intellectual hypocrisy I speak of.

[zenith-nadir]

Hamas will slowly get up to speed, and slowly alter their maximalist demands, and slowly reduce the armed conflict to a point where the Israelis can take baby-steps in their direction this summer.I cannot see Hamas altering their ideology 180 degrees without alienating the members who support the Hamas ideology - namely the destruction of Israel.

I hope you are right Web, but I cannot see how Hamas can do that without betraying everything Hamas has stood for over the past decades.

[webfusion]

Israel has been asked to allow Hamas to be supplied with 50 light-armored vehicles and two transport helicopters (from Russia).

The Hamas is already clearly engaged in a campaign to consolidate and enforce the cease-fire, and disarm factions that are not under its' direct authority.

I am in favor of Israel making any and all steps to BOLSTER the new Hamas government, in ways such as this, and to allow more freedom of movement, and more aid to enter the pipeline (for humanitarian pruposes and to pay salaries).

As my post above states, the Kadima government needs to wait for the upcoming victory in the March elections before doing anything which would be viewed by the Israeli electorate as 'helping' Hamas, but after the election is concluded, certainly a lot can be done to help move Hamas into position to be a negotiation partner, and everyone knows that to be Olmert/Peres' preferred outcome!

[webfusion]

Z=N is concerned:
"I cannot see Hamas altering their ideology 180 degrees without alienating the members who support the Hamas ideology - namely the destruction of Israel."

They don't have to shift 180º --- nobody is expecting them to become 'hovevei tzion', and for that matter, nobody is seriously expecting them to even make an effort to change their Charter, or to dismantle the Izz-a-din al-Qassem Brigades.

A sense of 'realpolitik' will take hold this summer, with Hamas consolidating and Israel accommodating, the two sides will form a dialogue and organize their relations within the constraints of each others' maximalist demands!

A. Israel cannot retain all the territories it occupied in 1967.
B. Hamas cannot destroy the Jews.

So, in the middle somewhere, will be a meeting of the minds.

[zenith-nadir]

They don't have to shift 180º --- nobody is expecting them to become 'hovevei tzion', and for that matter, nobody is seriously expecting them to even make an effort to change their Charter, or to dismantle the Izz-a-din al-Qassem Brigades.Then what good can be gleaned by supporting them if they won't change their charter or dismantle the Izz-a-din al-Qassem Brigades? As a rule I don't reward my dog if it craps on the rug, otherwise it will crap on the rug again. ;)

A sense of 'realpolitik' will take hold this summer, with Hamas consolidating and Israel accommodating, the two sides will form a dialogue and organize their relations within the constraints of each others' maximalist demands!It will be easier for Israel to accomodate than for Hamas to stab their martyrs in the back by negotiating with "the zionists".


A. Israel cannot retain all the territories it occupied in 1967. B. Hamas cannot destroy the Jews. So, in the middle somewhere, will be a meeting of the minds.I agree Israel must give up more of the West Bank, but if Gaza taught us anything that will not solve much. On the other hand Hamas cannot destroy the jews...but that doesn't stop them from trying because the destruction of Israel is the core of their ideology and the second paragraph of their lovely charter.

Hamas Covenant (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm)

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"

[webfusion]

It is fascinating that you chose to quote the line from the Hamas Charter that you did.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it"

This will be used as proof that Hamas recognizes Israel!

Hey, you remember the Gaza PNC convention, with Bill Clinton in attendance, everyone was thrilled at the vote 'revoking the clauses' in their Charter.... blah blah blah.... why bother with that whole charade again? I don't care if they have their '****** Charter -- let 'em wallow in it. I don't care if they have 20,000 Iz-a-Dins (certainly they can't do worse than the "PA Police" have in keeping law and order).

What I care about is functional and effective government.
I know these Hamas guys from first-hand experience, and they are very very authoritarian, imposing strict discipline and imposing their rules. They will keep to whatever plan they have. If it involves keeping the peace for 10 years, while building up their economy, building up their influence internationally, building up their armed forces, building up their political strength --- that's all part and parcel of Palestinian independence. Try and stop it? No way.

All this talk of "destroy Hamas" is a joke. A bad joke.

Yeah, so Israel faces Islamic threats -- what else is new? That's the world we live in. You wanna place Israel at the forefront of stopping Islamists from taking over the world? Then, move over there, and join the 'fight', but don't expect we Israelis to do it for you.

[zenith-nadir]

Hey, you remember the Gaza PNC convention, with Bill Clinton in attendance, everyone was thrilled at the vote 'revoking the clauses' in their Charter.... blah blah blah.... why bother with that whole charade again?For me that is the whole point. Why go through the charade again? I think the world should say "ok...cool...you made up your mind democratically, we understand your choice clearly and you're on your own...such is our democratic right". I do not see anything wrong with that position in the slightest.

What I do have a problem with is going through the charade all over again. History must have taught us something after 12 years of PLO/Fatah.

What I care about is functional and effective government.Me too. My dream is that once and for all the Palestinians and Israelis make peace. The intellectual part I am having alot of trouble with is what people are asking Israel to do is akin to asking America and Britain to support an Al Queda government in Afghanistan in the hope Al Queda will somehow "moderate". That concept alone is ludicriuos in any other context except, it seems, when it comes to Hamas.

You wanna place Israel at the forefront of stopping Islamists from taking over the world? Then, move over there, and join the 'fight', but don't expect we Israelis to do it for you.I expect Israel to protect it's interests, citizens - my family - and tourists from terror groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. I expect Israel to protect the Rutenberg Power Station and the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline from Gaza militants' rockets. I do not see Hamas as the leader in this quest. As far as I am concerned the rest of the world is on their own with the cartoon jihadists and Al Queda...maybe one day, after enough carnage, they'll understand what groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa really represent.

[edited to add]

Hamas chief due in Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060219/wl_mideast_afp/mideastiranpalestinianhamas_060219143739) - Feb 19, 2006

TEHRAN (AFP) - Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal is to arrive in Iran for more high level talks with its leaders, the Iranian foreign ministry said.

Hamas representative in Iran Abu-Osama Abd-al Moti also told the Iran News paper that his Syrian-based chief, who was last in Tehran in December, would also be meeting Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran and Hamas are close allies, sharing their refusal to recognise Israel and opposition to the peace process. In December, Meshaal also declared Iran and Hamas formed a "united front" against Israel.(emphasis mine)

[webfusion]

Hamas is not Al-Qaeda.
Gaza is not Afghanistan.
Ramallah is not Baghdad.

Hamas is able to stop the attacks much more effectively than the IDF can.
If they say "don't launch rockets" and "don't commit suicide bombings" then these acts will stop. If that is what they want...

Now, the question remains, is that what they want?


(edited to add: Israel is still at the advanced stage of deciding to run an IAF mission into Iran to incapacitate their nuclear-processing facilities at NATANZ & ISFAHAN, which would, of course, set the entire MidEast into a new round of turmoil, and cause Hamas to abandon all pretenses of being peaceful and moderate) ;)

[zenith-nadir]

Hamas is able to stop the attacks much more effectively than the IDF can.I agree, that is if they wanted to.

17:16 Feb 19, '06 / 21 Shevat 5766 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=98781)

Over the past 12 weeks, over 320 Kassam rockets have been fired. Most recently, two rockets were fired at the western Negev city - just an aerial kilometer from Gaza - on Thursday, bringing the week's total number of Kassams to close to a dozen.

Now, the question remains, is that what they want?Now that they are in power I suspect the leaders of Hamas will stick to the status quo while they try walking between the raindrops.

[Mark]

Everything they do is simply the knee-jerk reaction to what Israel does, which is a liberal cop out IMO.

Could you please provide a quote where any mainstream liberal has said such a thing, ever?

[zenith-nadir]

Could you please provide a quote where any mainstream liberal has said such a thing, ever?And if I jumped through your hoops what would that change? Not much. But lemme give you an example.

When Israel killed Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004 the liberals around the world went ballistic.

BBC Friday, 26 March, 2004, 04:26 GMT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3568349.stm)

The European Union says the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been made worse by the killing of Sheikh Yassin.What? Killing a terrorist who preached hatred, and glorified suicide bombings of buses, restaurants, and cafes - while also authorizing the murders of Palestinians, AKA "collaborators" - makes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict worse? :boggled:

This is what I am talking about Mark. This moral "outrage" at Israel's actions rather than Yassins' well-documented terrorism went so far that even the UN passed a resolution against Israel...that's is until the USA vetoed it.

So please Mark spare me the liberal "who... us?" crap.

[geni]

What? Killing a terrorist who preached hatred, and glorified suicide bombings of buses, restaurants, and cafes - while also authorizing the murders of Palestinians, AKA "collaborators" - makes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict worse? :boggled:


In the long run perhaps. Certianly if Antar Zouabri had been killed early on the Algerian civil war could would well have lasted longer (yes I know the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat are still around but things have still been fairly peaceful).

[Freakshow]

I am totally with you, Darat.

I never have understood the "don't make the terrorists more upset" approach. How could they possibly get any more upset than being dedicated to killing you?

Good post. I agree with all of it.

[Mark]

And if I jumped through your hoops what would that change? Not much. But lemme give you an example.

When Israel killed Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004 the liberals around the world went ballistic.

What? Killing a terrorist who preached hatred, and glorified suicide bombings of buses, restaurants, and cafes - while also authorizing the murders of Palestinians, AKA "collaborators" - makes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict worse? :boggled:

This is what I am talking about Mark. This moral "outrage" at Israel's actions rather than Yassins' well-documented terrorism went so far that even the UN passed a resolution against Israel...that's is until the USA vetoed it.

So please Mark spare me the liberal "who... us?" crap.


That's the best you can come up with?

Got news for you: the mid-east conflict is NOT the fault of the evil, booga-booga, liberals. So spare us the "liberals cause every single problem in the world" crap.

[geni]

I am totally with you, Darat.

I never have understood the "don't make the terrorists more upset" approach. How could they possibly get any more upset than being dedicated to killing you?


If you have to ask that you lack imagination.

[Mark]

If you have to ask that you lack imagination.

What, they want to kill us and give us noogies? ;)

[Freakshow]

If you have to ask that you lack imagination.Or maybe I just don't stretch and stretch to come up with some "why do they hate us" justification. Sometimes, people are just crazy psychotic sacks of s***, and need killing.

[Mark]

Sometimes, people are just crazy psychotic sacks of s***, and need killing.

Careful, my friend...you're sounding dangerously close to those same Muslim whackos! We're supposed to be better than they are...not identical.

[Freakshow]

Careful, my friend...you're sounding dangerously close to those same Muslim whackos! We're supposed to be better than they are...not identical.I'm not a moral relativist. :) Saying "I want to kill you because you don't believe in my religion" is different from saying "I want to kill you because you are a known terrorist and have been behind attacks that have killed dozens of civilians in Israel." HUGE difference.

[Mark]

I'm not a moral relativist. :) Saying "I want to kill you because you don't believe in my religion" is different from saying "I want to kill you because you are a known terrorist and have been behind attacks that have killed dozens of civilians in Israel." HUGE difference.

Fair enough. Your first quote did not include that qualifier.

[Freakshow]

Fair enough. Your first quote did not include that qualifier.Oh, sorry about that. :p

That's the problem with typing out a few lines on an Internet forum. It is awfully tough to get the full meaning and context across. Of course, you could say that is the fault of the poster, for not explaining fully and properly. I plead guilty to being lazy on a Sunday morning. :)

[Mark]

Oh, sorry about that. :p

That's the problem with typing out a few lines on an Internet forum. It is awfully tough to get the full meaning and context across. Of course, you could say that is the fault of the poster, for not explaining fully and properly. I plead guilty to being lazy on a Sunday morning. :)

Full disclosure, then: I have a head cold and probably shouldn't be posting at all.

[zenith-nadir]

[i]Got news for you: the mid-east conflict is NOT the fault of the evil, booga-booga, liberals. So spare us the "liberals cause every single problem in the world" crap.I never said "liberals cause every single problem in the world". I said "You are starting to learn Darat that the Palestinians are never really responsible for "increasing hatred". Everything they do is simply the knee-jerk reaction to what Israel does, which is a liberal cop out IMO".

Sometimes, people are just crazy psychotic sacks of s***, and need killing.The west is starting to wake up and realize that yes, there are actually crazy psychotic sacks of s***, such as Sheikh Ahmed Yassin or Bin Laden or Al-Zarqawi who direct extreme and atrocious violent actions against innocent people.

[geni]

Or maybe I just don't stretch and stretch to come up with some "why do they hate us" justification. Sometimes, people are just crazy psychotic sacks of s***, and need killing.

I was pointing out the issue that there are worse things than being killed.

[Mark]

I never said "liberals cause every single problem in the world". I said "You are starting to learn Darat that the Palestinians are never really responsible for "increasing hatred". Everything they do is simply the knee-jerk reaction to what Israel does, which is a liberal cop out IMO".



I'm glad you are not blaming the "liberals" for everything. Your closing remark was still inaccurate to the point of obsurdity. Most liberals (not all) are staunch supporters of Israel.

But, really, it is the far right end of the political spectrum you should be worried about. That's where you'll find most of your "knee-jerk" Jew bashers.

[Skeptic]

Or maybe I just don't stretch and stretch to come up with some "why do they hate us" justification. Sometimes, people are just crazy psychotic sacks of s***, and need killing.

"He is one of those people who would be enormously improved by death" -- Saki (H. H. Munro).

[Freakshow]

Full disclosure, then: I have a head cold and probably shouldn't be posting at all.Get well soon, dude.

I went through that not too long ago. But I had a BAD flu, and bronchitis. It was rough. That week, the only person on the forum that posted more than me was Darat! :o

I get paid to think for a living (you might not know it all the time from reading my posts, but JREF is where I come to chill and "let my hair down", and just let the opinions fly; I'm not here trying to impress people or make any money.) So when I'm really sick, the mind goes. I just can't function. But I was healthy enough to make it from bed to the couch, and blather on about stuff at JREF. :)

Get lots of rest, drink lots of fluids, you know the deal... :)

[NoZed Avenger]

A. Israel cannot retain all the territories it occupied in 1967.
B. Hamas cannot destroy the Jews.

So, in the middle somewhere, will be a meeting of the minds.



In the middle with point B. . . . Would that be that Hamas gets to kill a lot of Jews, just not all?

Because that is not sounding like a great deal for the other side, methinks.

[The Fool]

In the middle with point B. . . . Would that be that Hamas gets to kill a lot of Jews, just not all?

Because that is not sounding like a great deal for the other side, methinks.
The numbers being killed are not a great deal for anyone...I Think Point B is a basic fact of life that more people could pay attention to.

Palestinians have as much chance of "destroying the jews" as I would have of winning the world heavywieght boxing title....I think point B from the palestinian pespective could be described as "Israel is not going to vanish"

[Elind]

I am glad this decision has been made and I hope other countries - especially the countries of the EU and the USA - also adopt this stance.

Wow. I must have misunderstood your position in some other exchanges.

One camp says that if everyone pretends sincerely enough then pretense will result in a defacto change of position by Hamas, assuming they continue to pretend to have a ceasfire with Israel, and assuming that they continue to pretend that, like Fatah, they can't control every "extremist" in Palestine and assuming that they don't mean what they say publicly and privately, and assuming that the EU and others will continue to pretend the same and continue to send money and assuming that most Palestinians didn't really vote for war, and assuming they are all just really really stupid, not homicidal, then peace with Hamas is possible in another generation or two.

The other camp says ........you missed the opportunity, yet again. Surprise surprise. Tough.

[Art Vandelay]

Could you please provide a quote where any mainstream liberal has said such a thing, ever?What would be the point? You would just stick your fingers in your ears and hum, just like you always do. People on this forum have said this. You want to call me a liar? Fine, but I'm not the one that keeps getting caught red handed fibbing.

[zenith-nadir]

Monday, 20 February 2006, 01:27 GMT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4730568.stm)

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has said the Palestinian Authority (PA) is facing a "real financial crisis".

"Unfortunately, the pressures have begun and the support and the aid started to decrease... therefore we are currently in a real financial crisis," he told reporters in Gaza.Gosh... where have I heard this claim before?

Nov. 9, 2003 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml)

Arafat's Billions - (CBS) Yasser Arafat diverted nearly $1 billion in public funds to insure his political survival, but a lot more is unaccounted for.

"Arafat for years would cry poor, saying, 'I can't pay the salaries, we're gonna have a disaster here, the Palestinian economy is going to collapse,'" says Indyk. "And we would all mouth those words: 'The Palestinian economy is going to collapse if we don't do something about this.' But at the same time, he's accumulating hundreds of millions of dollars." But it's just not Arafraud...

Sunday 05 February 2006, 13:41 GMT (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A8B960F9-3FD5-406A-94E4-B5976B565D20.htm)

At least $700 million of funds from the Palestinian Authority's coffers have been squandered or stolen by officials over the past few years, an internal investigation has revealed.

Commenting on the PA squandering issue, Ahmed al-Moghani, Palestinian attorney-general, said: "There are 50 cases of financial and administrative corruption. The amount of money that was squandered and stolen is more than $700 million."Only another $700,000,000.00? :rolleyes:

[Mark]

What would be the point? You would just stick your fingers in your ears and hum, just like you always do. People on this forum have said this. You want to call me a liar? Fine, but I'm not the one that keeps getting caught red handed fibbing.

You're weird.

[Mark]

Get well soon, dude.

I went through that not too long ago. But I had a BAD flu, and bronchitis. It was rough. That week, the only person on the forum that posted more than me was Darat! :o

I get paid to think for a living (you might not know it all the time from reading my posts, but JREF is where I come to chill and "let my hair down", and just let the opinions fly; I'm not here trying to impress people or make any money.) So when I'm really sick, the mind goes. I just can't function. But I was healthy enough to make it from bed to the couch, and blather on about stuff at JREF. :)

Get lots of rest, drink lots of fluids, you know the deal... :)

THanks for the good wishes! Feeling better today, more or less.

[zenith-nadir]

This is how broken liberal's moral compasses are when it comes to the subject of Hamas and the Palestinians.

Don't punish the Palestinians: Carter (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060220/ts_alt_afp/usmideastpalestinian_060220152630) - 20 Feb, 2006

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US president Jimmy Carter cautioned the United States and Israel against punishing the Palestinian people for electing a government led by Hamas.

"During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles," Carter wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece.

"Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences," Carter warned.Here's a lesson in history Mr. ex-American President...

August 21, 2002 (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/21/mideast/)

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Israeli police Wednesday said they had broken up a terrorist cell that they believe was responsible for eight attacks, including a bombing at Hebrew University that killed nine people, five of them Americans.

Members of the group had confessed to carrying out eight attacks that killed 35 people, police said. They said they got their orders from Ramallah-based leaders of the radical Palestinian group Hamas, the sources said.In case you missed that Hamas bombing Jimmy the names of the dead Americans who were blown up by Hamas while eating lunch at a university in Jerusalem were Marla Bennett, Benjamin Blutstein, Janis Ruth Coulter, David Gritz and Dina Carter.

Other dead Americans courtesy of Hamas are:

Dr. David Applebaum and his daughter Nava blown up in the bombing of Jerusalem's Cafe Hillel, September 2003

Shoshana Greenbaum who happened to be eating pizza for lunch at the Sbarro pizzeria in August 2001


Oh, and here's another one for ya Jimmy, the Palestinian Authority renamed the central square in Jenin after Ali Jafar al-Na'amani, the Iraqi suicide bomber who killed four U.S. Marines at a checkpoint in Najaf on March 29th, 2003.

But god forbid we "piss of the Palestinians" by rejecting a Hamas-led government... :mad:

[Art Vandelay]

You're weird.You're a troll.

[Mark]

You're a troll.

Wanker.

[Mark]

This is how broken liberal's moral compasses are when it comes to the subject of Hamas and the Palestinians.

Here's a lesson in history Mr. ex-American President...

In case you missed that Hamas bombing Jimmy the names of the dead Americans who were blown up by Hamas while eating lunch at a university in Jerusalem were Marla Bennett, Benjamin Blutstein, Janis Ruth Coulter, David Gritz and Dina Carter.

Other dead Americans courtesy of Hamas are:

Dr. David Applebaum and his daughter Nava blown up in the bombing of Jerusalem's Cafe Hillel, September 2003

Shoshana Greenbaum who happened to be eating pizza for lunch at the Sbarro pizzeria in August 2001


Oh, and here's another one for ya Jimmy, the Palestinian Authority renamed the central square in Jenin after Ali Jafar al-Na'amani, the Iraqi suicide bomber who killed four U.S. Marines at a checkpoint in Najaf on March 29th, 2003.

But god forbid we "piss of the Palestinians" by rejecting a Hamas-led government... :mad:


Let's stop trying to say that ani-semitic sentiments are limited to "liberals", shall we? It is, at best, a complete bastardization of the truth. At worst a blatant lie.

[Emphasis mine)
From the Anti-Defamation League's own web site:
While there have always been the likes of the Pat Buchanans, the Joseph Sobrans, and anti-Semites, what is disturbing today is that those extremists are being joined by a voices in the antiwar movement and the media, on the left and the right, who are promoting a canard that America's going to war has little to do with disarming Saddam, but everything to do with Jews, the "Jewish lobby" and the hawkish Jewish members of the Bush Administration who, according to this chorus, will favor any war that benefits Israel and the Jews...

...Robert Novak has called the conflict, "Sharon's war." Liberal writer Ian Burama cites "Jewish-American hysteria." And others, including Paul Schroeder in the American Conservative, Georgia Ann Geyer and Alexander Cockburn have referenced the canard of Jewish and Israeli influence.
http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Anti_Semitism_Domestic/plain_anti_semitism_op_05052003.htm

[zenith-nadir]

Let's stop trying to say that ani-semitic sentiments are limited to "liberals", shall we? I have not used the words "anti-semetic" in this entire thread. Therefore how could I possibly say that anti-semitic sentiments are limited to "liberals".

Congratulations you just created a 100% bonified strawman Mark! :clap:

[Mark]

I have not used the words "anti-semetic" in this entire thread. Therefore how could I possibly say that anti-semitic sentiments are limited to "liberals".

Congratulations you just created a 100% bonified strawman Mark! :clap:

Fine. Here was your comment:
This is how broken liberal's moral compasses are when it comes to the subject of Hamas and the Palestinians.


This is not the first time you have tried that drivel. I realize that in your world there is only "correct" verses "liberal", but in the real world it just ain't that way.

Israel has friends and enemies on both sides of the political spectrum, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

[Almo]

Israel is occupying Palestine. Get behind the 1967 borders I say. Once that happens, THEN bitch at Hamas. As long as Palestine is occupied, terror will continue since they have no other means of fighting the occupation. With the US firmly on Israel's side on this one, they don't have much choice. Funny how in 1776 American terrorists were "freedom fighters." "Terror" is how a materially out-classed group fights their superiors.

"Reality on the ground." Humph. The reality on the ground is that every Palestinian killed pisses off several more. I personally think that Israel's goal is to take ALL of the West Bank by proving the Palestinians to be utterly intransigent. Well, they WILL be until Israel goes back to where the UN says they should be. Since the US says Israel can stay in the WB, they can use that as a rock to push from and make sure the Palestinians are never happy and continue to bomb things, which is in Israel's long-term political interest.

:bigtank:

[Mark]

Israel is occupying Palestine. Get behind the 1967 borders I say. Once that happens, THEN bitch at Hamas. As long as Palestine is occupied, terror will continue since they have no other means of fighting the occupation. With the US firmly on Israel's side on this one, they don't have much choice. Funny how in 1776 American terrorists were "freedom fighters." "Terror" is how a materially out-classed group fights their superiors.

"Reality on the ground." Humph. The reality on the ground is that every Palestinian killed pisses off several more. I personally think that Israel's goal is to take ALL of the West Bank by proving the Palestinians to be utterly intransigent. Well, they WILL be until Israel goes back to where the UN says they should be. Since the US says Israel can stay in the WB, they can use that as a rock to push from and make sure the Palestinians are never happy and continue to bomb things, which is in Israel's long-term political interest.

:bigtank:

I used to agree with some of what you just said. But Israel is dealing with a culture that thinks nothing of rioting, burning, and killing over a damn cartoon. Something that is very important to remember, I think. The more Israel gives in to them, the more they erupt in violence; there is no appeasing people like that.

[Art Vandelay]

As long as Palestine is occupied, terror will continue Terrorism will continue regardless. Palestinians were terrorists before the occupation, and they will continue to be terrorists even if the occupation ends.

since they have no other means of fighting the occupation. That is complete and utter BS. If Palestinians really wanted to end the occupation, it would be over in a few years. All they have to do is quit murdering Israelis. Take terrorism out of the equation, and the American people would never stand for an Israeli occupation of the West Bank, not even (and perhaps especially) Jewish Americans. With America's support, Palestinians would easily gain independence. Murdering Israelis isn't "fighting" the occupation, it's forcing Israel to continue it. To ask Israel to give up their right to self defense is absolutely absurd.

With the US firmly on Israel's side on this one, they don't have much choice.BS. Of course they have a choice. What, do they have no free will? They could choose to oppose the occupation peacefully. And the Palestinians aren't terrorists because the US is on Israel's side, the US is on Israel's side because the Palestinians are terrorists.

Funny how in 1776 American terrorists were "freedom fighters." Yeah, funny how people who are fighting for freedom are called "freedom fighters". It's simply hilarious.

"Terror" is how a materially out-classed group fights their superiors.No, it's how murderous scum fight.

Well, they WILL be until Israel goes back to where the UN says they should be.They will be no matter what.

[Freakshow]

I used to agree with some of what you just said. But Israel is dealing with a culture that thinks nothing of rioting, burning, and killing over a damn cartoon. Something that is very important to remember, I think. The more Israel gives in to them, the more they erupt in violence; there is no appeasing people like that.Mark, you've been over with us on the dark side for a couple weeks now. Has anyone shown you the secret handshake yet? Let me know, if not. I'll be happy to show you. Darth Daffy...
:D

[Freakshow]

Funny how in 1776 American terrorists were "freedom fighters." Please describe the specific terrorist actions taken by the founding fathers of the United States.

[Mark]

Mark, you've been over with us on the dark side for a couple weeks now. Has anyone shown you the secret handshake yet? Let me know, if not. I'll be happy to show you. Darth Daffy...
:D

LOL!

Darth Duck, maybe?

Neither one of us fits easy labels very well. That's a good thing. :)

[gtc]

Please describe the specific terrorist actions taken by the founding fathers of the United States.

Not sure if these count, I would like your views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnadenhutten_massacre

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

It is an interesting question for me. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that does not mean that all freedom fighters are terrorists. I bet my British ancestors would have viewed the Americans in much the same way as we now view the Iraqi militias.

[webfusion]

Almo ---

"Get behind the 1967 borders I say."

You really mean, return to the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines? Those weren't 'borders' but rather artificial demarcations on maps which recognized the relative positions of Jewish and Arab armed forces after a multi-front Cease-Fire was agreed-to.

In 1967, the Israelis breached the lines, which at the time, were no longer being respected by the Arabs in any case.

Today, we have Hamas as a major Islamic terror organization.
Between 1956-1967, they were just 'fedayeen' -- with the same aims.

So, that's the end of that. From 1967, there's No Going Back.
Fuggeddaboudit.

[Art Vandelay]

It is an interesting question for me. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that does not mean that all freedom fighters are terrorists. Nor does it mean terrorists are freedom fighters. Some people think that creationism is a reasonable position, that doesn't mean it is. And the fact that some people consider terrorists to be freedom fighters doesn't mean they are.

I bet my British ancestors would have viewed the Americans in much the same way as we now view the Iraqi militias.Militias, yes. Terrorists, no.

[Almo]

I used to agree with some of what you just said. But Israel is dealing with a culture that thinks nothing of rioting, burning, and killing over a damn cartoon. Something that is very important to remember, I think. The more Israel gives in to them, the more they erupt in violence; there is no appeasing people like that.

It's not about appeasment; we are appeasing Israel by allowing them to keep land that they took in a war. Israel STOLE that land back in '67. THAT's something we cannot forget. Hell, Israel didn't even EXIST over there until it was created after WWII.

So the West says, "Here, have this land, and call it Israel. Just move those people who have been living there for centuries off it." Okay, regardless of whether or not you think that was a good idea, let's take that as a starting point. Israel then goes to war and takes MORE land for the surrounding area? And we demand that the locals stop being angry about it?

The cartoon thing is a seperate issue. Were Israel to go BACK to their "rightful" (according to the UN at least) borders, and Hamas kept bombing them, THEN we could complain about it.

[Almo]

Yeah, funny how people who are fighting for freedom are called "freedom fighters". It's simply hilarious.

That's just... I dunno man. I mean, the Americans were fighting for economic reasons. We were fighting because we were upset about being taxed without a vote in Parliament. How is that fighting for "Freedom?" Looks like they were fighting for $$$ to me. Not like much has changed.

The Viet Minh were fighting for freedom from French domination. Ho Chi Minh came to the us first when he wanted France out of there. We said no cause France were our pals. So he went to the USSR because they'd help. Then we got all pissy because they also wanted Viet Nam to be united; how silly of them! We fought them because we didn't want them to be Communist; so they're branded Communist Insurgents instead of Freedom Fighters.

[RandFan]

Israel is occupying Palestine. Get behind the 1967 borders I say. That's not going to happen. Why would that do any good? Hamas doesn't call for the 1967 borders, they call for the destruction of Israel. Which is what lead to the war that changed the borders in the first place.

Once that happens, THEN bitch at Hamas. As long as Palestine is occupied, terror will continue since they have no other means of fighting the occupation. With the US firmly on Israel's side on this one, they don't have much choice. Funny how in 1776 American terrorists were "freedom fighters." "Terror" is how a materially out-classed group fights their superiors. It was truly tragic how many British women and children the American freedom fighters killed. I'm not saying there is no comparison to be made. I'm saying that it is a poor comparison. America should stand against the atrocities of either side.

[Mark]

It's not about appeasment; we are appeasing Israel by allowing them to keep land that they took in a war. Israel STOLE that land back in '67. THAT's something we cannot forget. Hell, Israel didn't even EXIST over there until it was created after WWII.

So the West says, "Here, have this land, and call it Israel. Just move those people who have been living there for centuries off it." Okay, regardless of whether or not you think that was a good idea, let's take that as a starting point. Israel then goes to war and takes MORE land for the surrounding area? And we demand that the locals stop being angry about it?

The cartoon thing is a seperate issue. Were Israel to go BACK to their "rightful" (according to the UN at least) borders, and Hamas kept bombing them, THEN we could complain about it.

A) Palestine did not EXIST as an independent state before the creation of modern Israel.

B) Israel didn't "go to war." They were attacked, with the intention to destroy the state of Israel (But you knew that). Plus, every time Israel has made peace overtures to the Palestinians, the Palestinians have responded with violence. Remember Arafat's intifadah? That came immediately after Israel made serious concesions, which Arafat viewed as weakness.

Since the Intifada was deliberately initiated by Yasser Arafat, the question remains: what exactly did he hope to achieve through this pre-mediated escalation of violence against Israel? It should be remembered that when the Camp David Summit broke down in July 2000, Arafat was blamed for the failure. Thus, his advisor, Hani al-Hasan, admitted on October 12, 2000 (Al-Ayyam, MEMRI): "The present Intifada permitted the Palestinians to change the rules of the game, damaging Barak's attempts to place responsibility for the deadlock in the peace process (on the Palestinians)."

Arafat's advisors hoped that by combining violence with negotiations, the Palestinian Authority could force Israel to make further tangible concessions. Moreover, they expected that excessive Israeli firepower would bring about the kind of international intervention that would externally impose new political arrangements on Israel that would be to the Palestinians' advantage.
http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-4.htm

It is important to note that there was a Jewish population in Palestine continuously. Even after the Jewish state was ended by the Romans, Jewish communities continued to exist. All of the successor governments tried to eliminate the Jews at one time or another, but none succeeded as numerous accounts testify over the centuries. When the Zionists started the modern "return" to Eretz Yisrael in the 19th Century, they were joining Jews who never left.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_brief_history.php

[Ziggurat]

It's not about appeasment; we are appeasing Israel by allowing them to keep land that they took in a war. Israel STOLE that land back in '67. THAT's something we cannot forget.

They didn't steal it, they conquered it. And the world has been letting countries keep conquered territory since the dawn of time, that didn't magically stop before '67, or even after. Where are the UN commissions dedicated to the rights of Tibetans, for example? Why do Palestinian refugees get treated by the UN differently than every other refugee on the face of the planet? You think injustice has been done? Sure, whatever. You think this injustice is somehow unique, or deserves any special attention of the world compared to all the other problems that exist? Sorry, but there's no basis for that argument. You think Israel's neighbors are mad because they lost territory and want it back? Nope, they don't want anything to do with that land anymore, and won't take it back even if offered. You think Israel's neighbors are actually interested in the plight of the Palestinian people? Their governments sure as hell aren't, because they've been consistently making life harder for the Palestinians, not easier.

[Ziggurat]

That's just... I dunno man. I mean, the Americans were fighting for economic reasons. We were fighting because we were upset about being taxed without a vote in Parliament. How is that fighting for "Freedom?" Looks like they were fighting for $$$ to me. Not like much has changed.

That's not quite true either.

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/002534.html

"According to Fogel's table 1.1., "Life Expectancy At Birth in Seven Nations, 1725-2100," Americans had an interpolated life expectancy in 1775 of 53.5 years. Citizens of "England or UK" had an interpolated life expectancy in 1775 of 36.5 years. That's a seventeen year advantage for the American colonists.
...
Given that most Americans of the Revolutionary War period were of British extraction and could hardly have been ignorant of conditions there, it must have been as plain as the nose on their faces that people lived far longer, ate far better and grew up more sturdily in the Colonies than in the Mother Country. So when the British government started tightening the screws on the colonies in the wake of the French and Indian wars, the mental calculation of the colonists must have been pretty simple: "Let me get this straight: you British aristocrats, in your infinite wisdom, want to make us Americans more like the average British working man? In short, you want us to live as poorly as you do? I think not, if I have anything to say about it. Martha, what did you do with my rifle?""

[Elind]

It's not about appeasment; we are appeasing Israel by allowing them to keep land that they took in a war. Israel STOLE that land back in '67. THAT's something we cannot forget. Hell, Israel didn't even EXIST over there until it was created after WWII.


So you don't think anyone attacked by anyone else has a right to keep what they gained in the case that they won the war?

Sounds like a real inducement to the attacker. If they lose they just get back what they didn't win.

Of course you presumably think that if the Arabs had won in 67, then they would have eventually "given back" what they won. IE all of Israel at the origional border?

How stupid.:boggled:

[Freakshow]

Not sure if these count, I would like your views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnadenhutten_massacre

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

It is an interesting question for me. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that does not mean that all freedom fighters are terrorists. I bet my British ancestors would have viewed the Americans in much the same way as we now view the Iraqi militias.If things like this were done for no strategic value, and simply to create terror, then they are things that I do not approve of at all. I would not look at them and say "That's okay, because in this case, they are my freedom fighter!" I instead would look at it as a mark against them, and as something that I do not at all support as being "freedom fighting".

Also note that the founding fathers engaged in a direct war against the government and military of England. As opposed to just carrying out terrorist bombings in restaurants in England. See the difference?

One man's terrorist is NOT another man's freedom fighter. Terrorism is terrorism. It is the method, not the motivation, that makes it terrorism.

[Elind]

I bet my British ancestors would have viewed the Americans in much the same way as we now view the Iraqi militias.

Really? Presumably you think the British set up the US constitution, allowed elections and declared they would leave just as soon as the "Americans" stopped mostly killing each other?

Good grief.

[gtc]

Also note that the founding fathers engaged in a direct war against the government and military of England. As opposed to just carrying out terrorist bombings in restaurants in England. See the difference?

Yes

One man's terrorist is NOT another man's freedom fighter. Terrorism is terrorism. It is the method, not the motivation, that makes it terrorism.

I think it is a question of semantics. The term freedom fighter does not appear to imply particular tactics, but does imply a degree of support. Terrorist refers to the tactics devoid of the cause and implies condemnation.

A person who supports the cause will see a freedom fighter, a person who opposes the tactics will see a terrorist.

None of this ought to give the impression that I am not against terrorism

[gtc]

Really? Presumably you think the British set up the US constitution, allowed elections and declared they would leave just as soon as the "Americans" stopped mostly killing each other?

Good grief.

I think you misunderstand me. My analogy was about Iraqi militias now and American militias then. Not US today and Britain then.

[Elind]

I think you misunderstand me. My analogy was about Iraqi militias now and American militias then. Not US today and Britain then.

No. :confused: You are contorting your argument to make no argument.

You compared Iraqi militias and the US today, with American militias and the British then.

It is a ridiculous historical comparison as there are no similarities in the fundamentals.

[luchog]

I think it is a question of semantics. The term freedom fighter does not appear to imply particular tactics, but does imply a degree of support. Terrorist refers to the tactics devoid of the cause and implies condemnation.

A person who supports the cause will see a freedom fighter, a person who opposes the tactics will see a terrorist.
Nope. Regardless of the cause and goals; the tactics are the important deliniater between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". A true freedom fighter will limit attacks to the military and other government forces, government agents, and critical support infrastructure. Any civilian casualties are unintentional and accidental. A terrorist targets uninvolved civilians directly; generally in preference to (or even exclusively instead of) attacking government forces.

[Freakshow]

I think it is a question of semantics. The term freedom fighter does not appear to imply particular tactics, but does imply a degree of support. Terrorist refers to the tactics devoid of the cause and implies condemnation.Correct. "Terrorism" refers to the methods. So regardless of what one is fighting for, they are a terrorist, or they aren't. Their cause has nothing to do with it.

A person who supports the cause will see a freedom fighter, a person who opposes the tactics will see a terrorist.So a person can support the cause, but still condemn particular actions, label the people that committed such actions "terrorists", and not consider those terrorist freedom fighters?

[Elind]

So a person can support the cause, but still condemn particular actions, label the people that committed such actions "terrorists", and not consider those terrorist freedom fighters?
Isn't that the perpetual excuse of the apologist mind? It's one thing to accept the act that is an abberration, another to accept it as policy; but of course in some minds Abu Graib is US policy still and always in the future, so therefore terrorists as freedom fighters is a natural frame of thinking, and always will be. The word freedom has nothing to do with the arguments, it's just a spin word to them.

[gtc]

So a person can support the cause, but still condemn particular actions, label the people that committed such actions "terrorists", and not consider those terrorist freedom fighters?

Yes.

There is a clear distinction between tactics and cause.

Regarding my first post, I thought my use of the word militia would have been clear. A terrorist uses terrorist tactics, a militia uses military tactics.

Both may claim to be freedom fighters, a terrorist apologist will not draw distinctions between the two tactics or will suggest that terrorism is regrettable but necessary. A sensible person will distinguish between tactics, even if they support the cause.

My point is simply that some people (like Michael Moore apparently) can support both the Iraqi militia and the earlier US militias. Likewise, Britain then did not support the US militias and does not now support the Iraqi militias. That does not mean that the US militias did not, for the most part, employ honourable tactics.